Ethics on renovating a historically signifigant course?

[T_MacWood]

Forrest
I will write him and I'll copy you on it.

In fact I'll write a draft of a preservation position paper if you'd like. This doesn't have to be an addition to the golf architect's code of conduct....simply an acknowledgement of the importance of recognizing and preserving golf architecture's most historically significant designs (and designers)....and the reasons why it is important to preserve your heritage.

Just about every golf architect practicing today has has been influenced by, or claimed to be influenced by, a Ross or a MacKenzie or a Raynor or a Stanley Thompson or a RTJ or a Pete Dye or whatever famous architect (IMO RTJ, Dye, Wilson's best work is equally important to recognize and preserve). This could give golf architects an opportunity to do something concrete to acknowledge that influence, and help to preserve the very best of their art for future generations.

[Forrest Richardson]

Tom — I would welcome a "white paper", if you will, on preservation. Perhaps written in the context of an outline — with a sequential approach to what constitutes a historical golf course, followed by the components which are treasured (typically), and, finally, what generally is done to these courses in the way of uncovering and/or restoring the past.

I am somewhat in charge of literature for the ASGCA — not necessarily the policy, but the implementation of what we extend to the public through our office. I feel an informative piece on this topic would be worthwhile.

You will need to appreciate that anything you provide will be augmented with other information. But, I beleive the opportunity exists for you to stimulate the process with your thoughts. I also cannot guarantee the timing of such a pamphlet/paper, but I will personally work to get it assembled, approved and produced.

To the comment by other(s) on the nature of such a document becoming soemthing that would have to be followed — or else, well, this would not be the point. Rather, I see it as an informative and educational effort.

[ian]

Forrest,

(I may regret this but...............)

I would be happy to be involved in the presentation of Mr. MacWood's preservation position paper to the ASGCA. Since this is an area that I feel strongly about, it would be the least I could do.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ian,

How are you going to do this with all the other committee work I have already secretly volunteered you for?  

[ian]

Mike,

After reading the above post by Cabell and then reading yours, it looks as though we agree.  There are no pure restorations.  Therefore how can there be a specialist?  It is all interpretation. IMHO.

I respectfully disagree about a specialist. I think the careers of Pritchard and Forse speak for themselves. You do not restore/sypathetically renovate to get rich or famous, you do it because you must.

Interpretation is what we do when we decide whether the work should be saved, altered or even returned. Either your into the history of architecture or your not. There are no part timers in this pursuit.

Jeff,

That's great that you have decided to chair the new preservation committee   , since I as an associate can only serve by your side.   And Forrest volonteered too, what a great guy !  

[Mike_Young]

Ian,
I think we are just disagreeing on definitions or wording.  Again, I am all for "sympathetic" work on older courses but that word has nnot bbeen used in this topic until you just did.  You mention Pritchard and Forse.  I enjoy their work but you even describe it as sympathetic.  What I said was I do not into pure restoration.  
Let's go back to vertical structure architecture for a minute.....
Would not pure restoration of an 1875 house be a coal burning fireplace and outdoor plumbing???  And a sympathetic be a modern heating system and indoor plumbing.  As Forrest said earlier, the vertical structure itself remains intact and the golf structure evolves.  Do you restore to a paper plan that one of the dead guys had drawn or do you restore to which was actually built.  And in so doing, who decides if the dead guy wanted what was put on the ground or insome cases decide that he wanted something else but nnever got to see it.  Again, I agree with Forrest, much of what we like today goes to the lineage of the club and it's supts over the years as much as the dead guy.
Now for me interpretation is how one determines what the dead guy wished to see on the ground not on the paper.  10 guys would have 10 different interpretations.  These interpretations come from time and study of old and new and anything and everything to do with the game not just the architecture.  Would you agree that an architect such as Pete Dye might have more ability and knowledge of restoration than many restoration specialist yet not be noted as such?

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
I have been fortunate to interview many of the top architects for the golf hazards book we are working on.  Frankly some archtiects just don't believe in restoration (more than you might think).  That doesn't mean that their view is wrong.  To me that just means you don't hire them if you are interested in restoring your golf course.   You hire someone that is passionate about it and does believe.  

One very prominent architect for example told me that he does not consider himself a “restorer of courses”.  He believes the game of golf is changing and golf courses should change with the game.  However, he did state that some courses have a vision for returning their golf courses to something closer to what they had in the past and if that is what they wanted, he'd do it.  Now whether that still qualifies him to do the research and the work, I'm not so sure.  I don't think his heart would really be in it.  

As I stated in an earlier post, I believe select courses are worthy of some form of restoration.  Maybe you don't "put back in the outdoor plumbing" to use your analogy, but you do your best to research what was once there and attempt to restore the original style and the design intent that the golf course enjoyed in the past.  

Mark

[Mike_Young]

Mark,
I don't disagree.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I think your approach in post #49 to effect good restoration and preservation projects is right on the money. I see only a positive with someone like Tom MacWood to try to write a position paper draft letter for the ASGCA to adopt but I really do wonder how effective that could be to put into actual practice. But the reality is that every little bit from every angle and entity will obviously help awareness and results in the long run. The fact is 20 years ago very few were talking the way a fairly good number are today on this subject of restoration and preservation of classic golf architecture. Awareness is definitely increasing and pretty soon it should hit something of a critical mass.

I probably do agree that up to may be 90% of old architecture never was worth restoring or preserving but it certainly seems to me it would be worth perhaps redesign improvement very much into the best of the old classic course architecture priniciples and practices. If done well that segement of architecture obviously could be made a lot better than it ever was.

[Willie_Dow]

Ian - Your thoughts about severity of bunkers brings me back to Merion.  Some severe, but some challenging looking not severe.  Until you got into that situation. A flat bunker, with a downhill green, looking at the cup.  Wow ! Typical Flynn !

Wilie

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Who decides what's worth keeping and what's worth restoring ?

And, at what point in time did golf courses cross the invisible barrier of being worthy of being retained or restored ?

And, to what date is a golf course restored to ?

If the green superintendents association isn't incorporated in the process you're wasting your time, because clubs have historically performed alterations "in house".

I like the general concept, but it's the rigidity of the premise that I find troubling.

[Forrest Richardson]

Pat —

"Who decides what's worth keeping and what's worth restoring?"

Isn't that the essence of golf? I mean, who decides to cut the corner...to carry the pond...to challenge the front of the green...to hit the 5 instead of the 6...to strike the putter boldly rather than politely...?

You have captured the essence, my friend. In golf — whether course, shot, or partner — we have choices. Unlike any other game ever devised.

[ian]

Mike,

Your right, we are stuck on words. In your anology we agree about technology, and the same applies to renovation work. There is sand trapper in the high faces to protect the bunkers. I also held the faces together with topsoil filled sand bags to avoid the faces caving in. So point taken (once again  )

I thought Mark Fine's comments were very good in explaining how some only care when they are made to. That is where I struggle the most, since a few of these guys do work at very, very important courses for study. How can I study the work of Thompson, if there is nothing original to see?

That's my angle take on all of this. While the amount of sympathetic work increased enormously over the last 10 years, there is still a larger stream of renovation that removes original work.

I do not believe a club can be the denied the right to do what they want, and I do believe only a small percentage of courses should be preserved. I do believe there should be a mindset to acknowledge and save examples of an architects work.

Again, I'm guessing by your posts and email that we are likely on the same side on this.


Pat,

This is not about trying to drawing the line in the sand, because as you and others have stated, it can not be done. It's about acknowledging that this is also an important part of being a golf architect.

I believe we are all generally conformists by nature. If one of the achitects principles or ethics is to try and preserve the work of the master architect, they might be "encouraged" to try and preserve more. The effect might not be on individual architects, because I can't see many of the ones I would like to change, changing. BUT It may have an effect on the clubs to encourage them to preserve or protect their heritage.

For anyone who thinks I'm naive, look how far preservation has come in 20 years. Nobody talked about saving Thompson courses when I first started, now they look to save or return the work or ideas of Thompson. People's attitudes have changed with education. I think some architects are still behind the curve.

[Forrest Richardson]

I believe Ian has hit upon an important point: Preservation, thanks to many here, Tom D., and several other architects (and writers) is on a roll like never before. And, it also has caused a retro movement — or by other names, "minimalist", "back-to-basics", whatever.

The only danger is in actually believing that retro, appearing old-world or outright mimicking is THE only right way, or that it somehow is a better way.

This is where several here on GCA refuse to see too far beyond their own views. Not everything in golf design has been tried. Preservation — whether of ideas or specific courses — is not mutually exclusive to improving or creating fresh.