Maintenance vs Architecture

[Willie_Dow]

There is an element of conflict here.  Should the budget for maintenance outweigh the conflict for the maintenance of the archicture?

[stovepipe]

Will.

   It all depend's how much "dosh" you have.
   And how determined you are.

But Golf courses dont come cheap, good one's are expensive, great ones, need i say, loads of dosh

[Anthony_Nysse]

For a course that is a CCFAD, or a top 100, or even just a course with alot of money and high expectations (Deepdale, Piping Rock, Old Marsh, Husdon National, etc....) a $1,000,000+ budget isn't really anything to balk at anymore. I know of courses that are $1.9 million and over....it's really amazing how expenseive it is to maintain a course.

[Andrew Summerell]

The best way to handle it would be to have a budget for general maintenance & a separate budget for architectural maintenance & restoration.

Only courses with a certain history would need to bother.

[Steve Curry]

Maintenance of architecture should be the theme of a courses budget,  both operating and capital.  Maintaining the course should be synonymous with maintaining its architecture.  It can take a long term commitment to restore lost architectural elements and if affordable architecture should not be denigrated for the sake of easier maintenance.
Regards,
Steve

[TEPaul]

By the way, if you want to know the architect, who, in my opinion, fights hardest for the integrity of restoration architecture to not be compromised at the expense of maintenance considerations it would be Ron Prichard. He can be a tiger out there in this area sometimes. In the area of maintenance vs architecture Ron Prichard fights hard on the side of architecture.

[A_Clay_Man]

The question raises interesting perspectives to the work done by the original architect.

Maybe there should be a top and bottom list of golf courses that represents the best and worst in relation to costs to maintain the architecture of the course?

It would be expected that the modern archie would have an edge , if he learned from the mistakes of those before him/her. But, I wonder.

[Mike_Young]

The required maintenance starts in the original design.  I am not sure the modern course has learned from the past.  I know that during the depression many design elements were removed such as bunkers and you could stillplay the courses but we have many new designs out there where the shaping etc dictates a maintenance budget that cannot be "backed off" and still be playable.  

[Willie_Dow]

Steve

[Willie_Dow]

Sorry Steve, but you and Tom are together on this one.  Vague as I may seem was correctly read.

Willie

[Brian Phillips]

Willie,

One of the jokes I throw at greenkeepers when arguing about bunker maintenance.

What is the perfect golf course for a greenkeeper?

Flat bunkers and no golfers..

Brian

[Mark_Fine]

Willie,
I have seen many "restorations" where the architect decided to not flash bunkers that should have been at least particially flashed, to keep maintenance costs down.  Not much you can do if the club dictates what they want.  How hard the architect pushed to flash them, we'll never know.  Most "give the client" what they want.  It's the old saying, "The customer is always right".  I wonder if that applies in golf architecture as it does in other businesses?  
Mark

[Willie_Dow]

When I look at the Cobbs Creek thread I wonder what Tom Paul reads into this bewilderment!

[Willie_Dow]

Brian

Thanks for the reply.  I think of you often, with your buddy.  And I still want to send you the photo of #4.  But I just haven't learned.  Yes, maintenance has become a computer adjustment vs long term maintenance, just like Enron, but I'm concerned with the outcome.  We, in golf, are victims of the what has been delivered.  The outcome is the product!