Care and Quality in US Restoration/Renovations vs. UK? Bunkering especially...?

[Niall C]

Simon

In a previous life, was your name Melvin Morrow ?

Niall

I don't think that's helpful

Simon


Well you say that but actually I tend to think it was helpful. My (intended) humorous remark was the first response to your OP, some 27 hours after you started the thread so it had the effect of bumping the thread back up the DG. Within an hour of my post there were another six posts with some well mannered and reasoned discussion. Result, surely ?


Niall


 

[Simon Barrington]

Simon
In a previous life, was your name Melvin Morrow ?
Niall

I don't think that's helpful

Simon
Well you say that but actually I tend to think it was helpful. My (intended) humorous remark was the first response to your OP, some 27 hours after you started the thread so it had the effect of bumping the thread back up the DG. Within an hour of my post there were another six posts with some well mannered and reasoned discussion. Result, surely ?
Niall

Ah, the ol' grit in the pearl argument.
Thanks for making me smile, this time round! ;-)

[Ben Stephens]

Melvyn is still alive and kicking - I do send the occasional message to him 

[Simon Barrington]

As a EIGCA member I disagree with this rather glaring comment - some of our members are at the top of their game when it comes to Archaeology and Research on their projects I can name a few of them - I think you need to get your facts right. We do try and educate our clients. At times the clients wants something different or like something seen at another golf club rather than recreate something that was done in the past.

One example is a project I have done with a fellow member of EIGCA and I did historical research on it which was a JH Taylor designed course however the safety margins were not met as houses and roads were close to a particular green that we had to relocate the green away from the houses/roads with basic shaping for the green/tees and one bunker because that's what the client could only afford.

Our initial design was more related to a Taylor style and the company that maintains the greens were appointed as the contractor said it has to be simplified as it is easier/cheaper for them to build and maintain. If it was to our original design with more contours, hollows and bunkers they said it would be more expensive and not meet the small/tight budget.

The UK is a different world when it comes to golf courses as opposed to USA and Europe who tend to have bigger budgets.

Hello Ben

I really appreciate and respect your defending the Association, as one hopes you (or any fellow member) would.

Where we may hopefully agree (from your own words) is that there are indeed "some" and "few" doing thorough research etc., those practitioners are to be lauded and I did state that this was not applying to all.

I know some who are doing great work (Members and Non-Members). 
They get the plaudits of others already, as they should for best practice and care.

I think your example is an interesting one, where you and your partner did a well-researched design, but then the client baulked at the price and did something entirely different.

My point, or question, is what should a GCA do in that circumstance?

The GCA should rightly ensure they get paid for their IP/Work on that research/design.

But then should they try (as you did) to educate the client. Be that at Board/Committee/Proprietor level or even better via the broader membership prior to any decisions being taken.

If the resulting work/plan was to be a dilution of their IP, and beyond what they were comfortable with, then should the GCA(s) remove themselves from the project entirely, including in name or not signing off on the resulting poor design (in Diagrams etc.)?

I feel there is an under-appreciated duty upon the client/Club to respect the GCA's body of work as a professional, and not to force or cajole them into a dilution of the quality of their work (or indeed their own course)

I know too many examples of a Committee/Board rail-roading a GCA's (agreed) plan in order to force through ill-informed personal preferences of a small group or even just one person. (In order to protect individuals I won’t expand, out of respect)

The GCA's name should not remain attached to such poor work, as it is potentially professionally damaging.
I suggest they need to decide at what point that occurs and stand up for their own reputation (and the EIGCA should support them in that)

I have too often heard the Architect used as cover for changes insisted upon from others, especially in communications to members justifying change or "modernisation" whatever that means.

It likely harms the GCA’s "Brand" and potentially their subsequent livelihood.

Great work is elevating, poor work is even more damaging to both the course, and the GCA reputationally.

However, the broader issue now in some Clubs in the UK is not due to a lack of money, it is the opposite in some cases there is perhaps too much (post COVID & Govt. support and VAT relief). Although I would caution them, that cycles always recur, and perhaps this winter is the late-cycle of Clubs trying to catch up with better run local competition...but someone has to be last.

There are numerous capital projects going on as cash is burning a hole in some Clubs pockets. "Keeping up with the Jones's" is a big driver. Plus a lot of (relatively) new golfers in control of matters.

Some good (well researched) work utilising technology and certain (more fashionable) bunker styles has received high profile, press & social media clicks (these may even be overseas examples) as it should.

But, the problem is the uninitiated in Clubs misunderstand (IMHO) the context for their own course and simply want the shiny new bunker estate, as well as the perennial problem of focusing too much on the better/longer players who are a minority of play (& £) but majority of voice/influence.

Their heads are turned by the surface aesthetic, even if its not what their course had or should have.
This is where I'd hope (and expect if I am honest) the GCA's to stand up for our precious historic courses.

I have been very disappointed by some GCA’s in that regard, and I have read plenty of Masterplans that just pay lip-service to the original ODG involved.

Some of your colleagues really don't dig deep enough, as was shown in the example that started (my perhaps too strident) post.

Ben, keep doing the good stuff (and avoid the less so) and thanks for your response & interaction

Cheers!

P.S. Nice to hear you keep in touch with Melvyn, who preceded my time on here, and who evidently made quite an impression on some!

[Simon Barrington]

Ben

As a history geek I wouldn't talk against doing a bit of research into the design history of a course, I'm just not enthralled with the idea that just because the original architect did something that we should blindly reproduce that. For sure it should inform the design process but it shouldn't limit the gca. To my mind the gca should ask whether the proposed change was for a specific reason ie. improve drainage, or whether it was to make the course better (not that improving drainage doesn't make the course better). If the reason is to make the course better then they need to be mindful of the heritage and be aware that if they are looking to improve on say Harry Colt, then that might be a (too) high bar to get over.

Niall

Hi Niall

I broadly agree, but I would say that not only Harry Colt needs the high bar.
As we have seen in the US restoration movement there are many examples of other worthy architects worth protecting/restoring too (could be Fernie, Taylor, Vardon or dare I say Braid).
It's about respecting what went before on that particular site, as you say, to the best possible result.

Cheers

[Simon Barrington]

Keeping with original bunker shapes, depths and sizes is an important part of the restoration process. Greens chairman/committees should be suspect and question any plans that diverge from this practice unless there is some overriding reason for the change. There is a U.S. based firm that does a terrific job with these projects through every phase and then somehow convinces the powers that be to change the bunkers to conform to their proprietary style instead of what was originally there. My criticism has to do with mainly Golden Age courses.

Agree

[Ben Stephens]

As a EIGCA member I disagree with this rather glaring comment - some of our members are at the top of their game when it comes to Archaeology and Research on their projects I can name a few of them - I think you need to get your facts right. We do try and educate our clients. At times the clients wants something different or like something seen at another golf club rather than recreate something that was done in the past.

One example is a project I have done with a fellow member of EIGCA and I did historical research on it which was a JH Taylor designed course however the safety margins were not met as houses and roads were close to a particular green that we had to relocate the green away from the houses/roads with basic shaping for the green/tees and one bunker because that's what the client could only afford.

Our initial design was more related to a Taylor style and the company that maintains the greens were appointed as the contractor said it has to be simplified as it is easier/cheaper for them to build and maintain. If it was to our original design with more contours, hollows and bunkers they said it would be more expensive and not meet the small/tight budget.

The UK is a different world when it comes to golf courses as opposed to USA and Europe who tend to have bigger budgets.

Hello Ben

I really appreciate and respect your defending the Association, as one hopes you (or any fellow member) would.

Where we may hopefully agree (from your own words) is that there are indeed "some" and "few" doing thorough research etc., those practitioners are to be lauded and I did state that this was not applying to all.

I know some who are doing great work (Members and Non-Members). 
They get the plaudits of others already, as they should for best practice and care.

I think your example is an interesting one, where you and your partner did a well-researched design, but then the client baulked at the price and did something entirely different.

My point, or question, is what should a GCA do in that circumstance?

The GCA should rightly ensure they get paid for their IP/Work on that research/design.

But then should they try (as you did) to educate the client. Be that at Board/Committee/Proprietor level or even better via the broader membership prior to any decisions being taken.

If the resulting work/plan was to be a dilution of their IP, and beyond what they were comfortable with, then should the GCA(s) remove themselves from the project entirely, including in name or not signing off on the resulting poor design (in Diagrams etc.)?

I feel there is an under-appreciated duty upon the client/Club to respect the GCA's body of work as a professional, and not to force or cajole them into a dilution of the quality of their work (or indeed their own course)

I know too many examples of a Committee/Board rail-roading a GCA's (agreed) plan in order to force through ill-informed personal preferences of a small group or even just one person. (In order to protect individuals I won’t expand, out of respect)

The GCA's name should not remain attached to such poor work, as it is potentially professionally damaging.
I suggest they need to decide at what point that occurs and stand up for their own reputation (and the EIGCA should support them in that)

I have too often heard the Architect used as cover for changes insisted upon from others, especially in communications to members justifying change or "modernisation" whatever that means.

It likely harms the GCA’s "Brand" and potentially their subsequent livelihood.

Great work is elevating, poor work is even more damaging to both the course, and the GCA reputationally.

However, the broader issue now in some Clubs in the UK is not due to a lack of money, it is the opposite in some cases there is perhaps too much (post COVID & Govt. support and VAT relief). Although I would caution them, that cycles always recur, and perhaps this winter is the late-cycle of Clubs trying to catch up with better run local competition...but someone has to be last.

There are numerous capital projects going on as cash is burning a hole in some Clubs pockets. "Keeping up with the Jones's" is a big driver. Plus a lot of (relatively) new golfers in control of matters.

Some good (well researched) work utilising technology and certain (more fashionable) bunker styles has received high profile, press & social media clicks (these may even be overseas examples) as it should.

But, the problem is the uninitiated in Clubs misunderstand (IMHO) the context for their own course and simply want the shiny new bunker estate, as well as the perennial problem of focusing too much on the better/longer players who are a minority of play (& £) but majority of voice/influence.

Their heads are turned by the surface aesthetic, even if its not what their course had or should have.
This is where I'd hope (and expect if I am honest) the GCA's to stand up for our precious historic courses.

I have been very disappointed by some GCA’s in that regard, and I have read plenty of Masterplans that just pay lip-service to the original ODG involved.

Some of your colleagues really don't dig deep enough, as was shown in the example that started (my perhaps too strident) post.

Ben, keep doing the good stuff (and avoid the less so) and thanks for your response & interaction

Cheers!

P.S. Nice to hear you keep in touch with Melvyn, who preceded my time on here, and who evidently made quite an impression on some!

Hi Simon,


It depends on the brief/requirements and what the client can afford. In this instance it is a local council (not a golf club or proprietary club) for one of their courses and it has gone to the cheapest bid unfortunately for my EIGCA colleague who I am helping them on it has become a very frustrating exercise as the chosen contractor is not really following the plans which can be the case. They have also been filling in bunkers on the other parts of the course so that is easier for them to maintain as they also have a contract to maintain the course. It has taken away some of JH Taylor's original shaping work by his shapers which I am sad to see.


Not all GCA projects are rosy. We did the research ourselves outside the brief/scope of works internally so that we can understand what the course was like originally and whether there were design ideas that could influence/help our par 3 hole design proposal.


On the other hand - I am not a fan of cookie cutter bunkers or cluster of bunkers and some construction contracts are design and build where there contractor has more influence than the architect as it is more cost effective for the client like in many building projects which sorts of makes it repetitive and artificial looking.


The best golf courses has the golf course architect on the site most of the time so they can oversee/influence the shapes and outlines of key parts on the golf course.


It is not easy being a GCA at times because sometimes outside factors beyond our control can influence things and we may disagree with them however they are the ones that makes the final decisions likewise on building projects we try to produce the best possible design as possible whether we like it or not.


Long term - artificial bunker outlines are cost effective and requires less maintenance plus keeps the clean look of the golf course that most clubs strive for (a la Augusta syndrome) this becomes attractive for many clubs.


Being 'inside' the EIGCA you learn a lot from other members/partners (companies/consultants in the industry) and realise their talent levels is rather high - every designer has their strengths and weaknesses. Some are frustrated/envious that they haven't got their dream project like some other members have. I do feel privileged to be part of both EIGCA and GCA as well as the RIBA (as I am also a Chartered Architect by trade). Some EIGCA members are also members of the ASGCA and SAGCA.


Looking forward to the EIGCA Annual Meeting next May in Dornoch which is the 25th Anniversary of the EIGCA (merger of BIGCA and European counterpart in 2000) there will be a lot of golf course architects there some which I have looked up to and you get to hear their stories which can be fascinating to listen to.

Cheers Ben

[Simon Barrington]

Niall,

Also the game has changed since Colt days - technology in terms of golf equipment, maintenance equipment, construction approaches and types of drainage available have moved on a long way. The bunkers are there to accommodate certain distances that golfers hit the great thing is that they can be easily replaced and moved further up or made more visible which today's golfers prefer and drain much better.

Also in the last decade has seen a rise of specialist bunker companies who provide products that makes bunker easier to maintain and prevent losing sand or preventing weeds coming through. In an ideal world I would prefer to use natural materials however client will be likely to overrule it and put in artificial materials so it is cheaper and easier to maintain in the long term without having to work too much on the bunker over say 10 years or so.

Golf overall is becoming more expensive and clubs are finding ways of saving money in the long term and becoming more efficient on which areas to maintain.   

Cheers
Ben

Ben, thank for your other considered reply.

If GCA was easy we wouldn't be able to celebrate the good ones! Really appreciated the candour.

Re. Moving Bunkers -
I think others far more qualified than I such as (I believe) Tom Doak consider this to be somewhat of a fool's errand, and I concur.
Who are we moving them for (the very small percentage of players) and to what prescriptive distance?
We lose variety, and as distances change in the future they need moving again?
If Rollback were to meaningfully occur (we can wish, or not) then do we move them all back again?

At my home club they removed (without any GCA involved) 2nd line/shot defence bunkers, as they were perceived as out of play, in 1994.
These were original James Braid 1907 hazards, that architecturally were very interesting as they were Cop-Style but only partially (two-thirds) across 2 holes.
So these were, as I believe Braid's work was in general, the connection/bridge between "Penal" & Stratgeic".
But no-one knew enough about Braid or cared about that back then.
Now a GCA is involved in a new bunker project and they are putting back bunkers in the exact places they were removed from as 1st line/shot hazards, albeit in very different style (hmmm...& guess what style that is!)...the definition of economic waste as prescribed by The Good Doctor c.1920!

The new technology can work and that along with simpler, smaller, well-considered hazards (or grass instead of sand) may be the way forward for Clubs so that they still give interest, fun and challenge while saving on maintenance...but we mustn't lose the quirk!

Cheers

[Ben Stephens]

Niall,

Also the game has changed since Colt days - technology in terms of golf equipment, maintenance equipment, construction approaches and types of drainage available have moved on a long way. The bunkers are there to accommodate certain distances that golfers hit the great thing is that they can be easily replaced and moved further up or made more visible which today's golfers prefer and drain much better.

Also in the last decade has seen a rise of specialist bunker companies who provide products that makes bunker easier to maintain and prevent losing sand or preventing weeds coming through. In an ideal world I would prefer to use natural materials however client will be likely to overrule it and put in artificial materials so it is cheaper and easier to maintain in the long term without having to work too much on the bunker over say 10 years or so.

Golf overall is becoming more expensive and clubs are finding ways of saving money in the long term and becoming more efficient on which areas to maintain.   

Cheers
Ben

Ben, thank for your other considered reply.

If GCA was easy we wouldn't be able to celebrate the good ones! But really appreciated the candour.

Re. Moving Bunkers -
I think others far more qualified than I such as (I believe) Tom Doak consider this to be somewhat of a fool's errand, and I concur.
Who are we moving them for (the very small percentage of players) and to what prescriptive distance?
We lose variety, and as distances change in the future they need moving again?
If Rollback were to meaningfully occur (we can wish, or not) then do we move them all back again?

At my home club they removed (without any GCA involved) 2nd line/shot defence bunkers, as they were perceived as out of play, in 1994.
These were original James Braid 1907 hazards, that architecturally were very interesting as they were Cop-Style but only partially (two-thirds) across 2 holes.
So these were, as I believe Braid's work was in general, the connection/bridge between "Penal" & Stratgeic".
But no-one knew enough about Braid or cared about that back then.
Now a GCA is involved in a new bunker project and they are putting back bunkers in the exact places they were removed from as 1st line/shot hazards, albeit in very different style (hmmm...& guess what style that is!)...the definition of economic waste as prescribed by The Good Doctor c.1920!

The new technology can work and that along with simpler, smaller, well-considered hazards (or grass instead of sand) may be the way forward for Clubs so that they still give interest, fun and challenge while saving on maintenance...but we mustn't lose the quirk!

Cheers

Hi Simon,


There was a Braid bunker on the 2nd fairway at Luffenham Heath - it was only about 180-190 from the whites and 160 from the yellows - it was slap bang in the middle of the fairway it was quite intimidating that you had to carry it. Sadly it was removed by a Hawtree redesign because the club was restricted to a number of bunkers by Natural England at that time.


They have now put in a blue tee which is like 50 yards further back and that Braid bunker would now be more in play.


It was an inland course version of the 2nd at Carnoustie where the central bunker really comes in play when playing in the wind. Braid was clever at making the player 'scared' or 'off putting' that a bad tee shot can easily be gobbled up.


The 5th at Brancaster has a Sarlacc like (most would understand if they watch Star Wars) centre line bunker


Another factor from a GCA design view point from experience is that more and more clients are requesting to remove centre line or cross bunkers because it is 'unfair' to shorter hitters who are the majority bringing in more money to the club which is sadly the case these days.


We GCA's would prefer more centre line and cross bunkers in new designs because they give more variety however is likely to be designed out 'by committee' or owners who listen to their most important 'clients' 


I prefer a course with varying size of bunkers, shapes and positions whether you have to carry it or not. Craig Craighead where I played recently at BUDA was the antithesis of this.


Moving bunkers is a reaction to trying to defend the course against the top players as they are bombing over current bunker positions which then comes in play for the average golfers who will think it is unfair. This is partially down to the ball and clubs (and fitness levels) which have increased distance over the years. The danger of moving bunkers is positioning them in places where they dont fit in well compared with the previous location.


Why not put in a mound or new grass bunker further up for the better player as it's harder to get ball spin out of a grass bunker than it is from a sand bunker. Some EIGCA Golf Course Architects are already proposing this design approach.


Cheers
Ben

[Niall C]

Hi Niall

I broadly agree, but I would say that not only Harry Colt needs the high bar.
As we have seen in the US restoration movement there are many examples of other worthy architects worth protecting/restoring too (could be Fernie, Taylor, Vardon or dare I say Braid).
It's about respecting what went before on that particular site, as you say, to the best possible result.

Cheers

Simon


I've omitted my original post so as to keep this a reasonable length.


I'd suggest that there are perhaps two factors as to why restoration is big in the US in a way it isn't in the UK;


- a great many of our courses were designed and built pre golden age and I'd suggest have evolved on an almost continuous basis since, incorporating different styles/ideas along the way. What do you do with a course like that ? Take it back to it's Victorian roots ? I'd suggest not. Certainly, I can't think of the near 130 courses that Fernie worked on that would merit the full restoration treatment.


- the biggest and most obvious factor is money, or the relative lack of it. How many clubs have the budget for a comprehensive restoration/refurb ? Probably very few.


That's not to say that some architects aren't trying very hard to make mileage out of restoring golden age gca's work.


Niall   

[Simon Barrington]

"Simon
I've omitted my original post so as to keep this a reasonable length.
- Point taken ;-)

I'd suggest that there are perhaps two factors as to why restoration is big in the US in a way it isn't in the UK;

- a great many of our courses were designed and built pre golden age and I'd suggest have evolved on an almost continuous basis since, incorporating different styles/ideas along the way. What do you do with a course like that ? Take it back to it's Victorian roots ? I'd suggest not. Certainly, I can't think of the near 130 courses that Fernie worked on that would merit the full restoration treatment.
- Agree, but that is also often used as justification for removing some of the relevant remnants of some ODGs input, when less-informed folk get involved.
- Good restoration chooses the version that most resonates and focuses around that but not at the exclusion of all other inputs, its a balance. Andrew Green has spoken about that in several podcasts of late, I like his approach.
- I am really interested in Fernie and would love to learn more from you about his work. The nods to pre-Golden Age that some GCA's are making may give oxygen to greater interest in his ilk?

- the biggest and most obvious factor is money, or the relative lack of it. How many clubs have the budget for a comprehensive restoration/refurb ? Probably very few.
- That's true, but organic gradual improvement over several years with careful stewardship can get a far better result than a rushed mistake IMHO

That's not to say that some architects aren't trying very hard to make mileage out of restoring golden age gca's work.
- Some of the lip-service "expertise" is really quite worrying. But, in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king...

Niall"
Cheers & thanks