[TEPaul]

....consider maintenance costs in their critiques?

The reason I ask is frequently golf clubs definitely consider on-going maintenance cost differences in their restoration decisions, most particularly with bunkering.

It seems like some on here who criticize some restorations and/or some club decisions on restorations don't really care to consider decisions on cost or on-going maintenance cost, and differences in cost.

Should they? I think so becasue there's no question in many cases the clubs have to do that.

I'll give you some really good examples on bunkering and such that would be more expensive to return to the way it once was and maintain it permanently;

Aronimink's multi-sets (200) vs Ross's (80)
Shinnecock's (bunker waste areas)
Cypress Point's incredibly beautiful ultra low profile original bunkering
Pebble's "imitation sand dunes"
The complexities of maintaining GCGC's restored #12
Restoring all GMGC's "top shot" bunkers at $8,000 each

Should architectural analysts understand this reality? Should they take it into consideration in their analyses, particularly since they aren't the ones who need to be concerned about the cost? Certainly the clubs have to take these things into consideration as well as their restoration architects.

How about the original architects? Did they really understand some maintenance cost complexities of some of the things they did? If so, did they care? To me, it would seem so since so many of the very best, Ross, Flynn, MacKenzie, Hunter, Behr, Thomas, Colt et al spoke all the time about economic efficiencies to do with design and on-going maintenance of it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I don't know if one could quantify, with a high degree of accuracy, what the resulting incremental maintainance costs would be.

In a era of sand pros I'd say it would be a weak excuse.

Perhaps the poster child for this exercise would be Hollywood.

I don't think additional maintainance costs would have been the critical factor in making the decision.

I believe that perceived playability issues take precendence over perceived maintainance issues in most cases.

In addition, "Golden Age" golf courses were designed by fellows of either Scotch descent, or fellows who were keenly aware of costs.   Thus, it's hard to imagine clubs using the perceived hit to the maintainance budget as an excuse NOT to restore.   Chances are, if they took the needed funds from their flower and shrubbery budget they'd have sufficient funds to take care of the bunkers.

[T_MacWood]

I think cost--maintenance and otherwise--should be considered. That is one reason why I advocate preservation when it makes sense.

As for your examples I think the only restorations that I'm aware of that have been criticised on your list are Aronimink and CPC.

In the case of Aronimink if the rational for NOT restoring the course as built was maintenance costs then that should have been articulated. Instead we were given unsupported speculation, incorrect information and a character assassination of poor JB McGovern.

And with CPC it was questioned if all the bunkers should have been rebuilt/restored.  Preserving them as is would have been a lot less expensive.

[TEPaul]

"In the case of Aronimink if the rational for NOT restoring the course as built was maintenance costs then that should have been articulated. Instead we were given unsupported speculation, incorrect information and a character assassination of poor JB McGovern."

Tom MacWood:

'We' were given? Who's that? I think it would be more appropriate to say you were the only one who criticized the decision that was made, and asked endless questions about it. If you bothered to read those threads you would have noticed I said a couple of times the prospect of restoring 200 bunkers instead of 80 was mentioned as one of the considerations due to cost.

You say instead 'WE' were given unsupported speculation, incorrect information and a character assassinaton of poor J.B. McGovern???

How was that? I simply told you the information that was available back then and the chronicle of events and how the decision was arrived at.

I'm never going to leave you alone on this website---you're a guy who deserve more than ever to be exposed for what you really are---a pompous ass who can only criticize others even if they do the best they can, and a guy who's too much of a coward to ever get out there and get involved personally. I wonder why?

[Mark_Fine]

Tom Paul,
Isn't that obvious!  I'm surprised you even bring this up as a question.  A good Master Plan should talk in depth about maintenance and explain/make recommendations on what should be done.

[TEPaul]

"Tom Paul,
Isn't that obvious!  I'm surprised you even bring this up as a question."

Mark:

Isn't what obvious?

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
I read your question wrong.  You are talking about critiquing vs doing.  Regardless, the point I was making is that maintenance is a key part of a master plan.  I presume you are saying the same thing.  

[JESII]

Patrick,

I agree and disagree with your post.

Agronomic innovation and equipment technology combined with a focussed effort to do the best for the golf course sake are reasons why total restoration should not negatively effect an operating budget. But in my view, the demand on high quality playing conditions today more than eclipses those savings afforded by technology.


Tom Paul,

I think the answer to your original question has to be yes.

As to your last paragraph in that lead post of this thread, to me it's like course yardage and green speeds. No matter how concious they may have been about the future possibilites of driving distance, green speeds and overall turf quality it would be difficult to imagine the most forward thinking of them visualizing 300 yard carries off the tee, 12 - 13 foot stimpmeter readings and turf maintenance capabilities such as we benefit from today.

[Paul_Turner]

Maitenance issues are often used as an excuse for remodelling or uninspired "restoration" work.  

But this reasoning doesn't wash if the particular features have existed, for many decades, close to their original design.

[DMoriarty]

I'm never going to leave you alone on this website---you're a guy who deserve more than ever to be exposed for what you really are---a pompous ass who can only criticize others even if they do the best they can, and a guy who's too much of a coward to ever get out there and get involved personally. I wonder why?

Is this thread about anything except furtherance of a personal vendetta?  Is this really appropriate for the website.  I dont think so, but wonder why noone else seems willing to say anything?  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()