Mark, I think you miss the point in your most recent post. Architects who behave as Hills is purported to have done, or like Killian & Nugent operated in the Chicago area in the 70's and 80's, (and there are others) are a significant part of the problem. An architect with respect for and an appreciation of the development of GCA would have worked to explain to Lehigh what the members had. He might have presented alternatives ranging from a restoration to a "sympathetic renovation" to a remodel and made recommendations. If the attitude is that "the members don't know what they have so I'll do what I want", or, perhaps even worse, "I am better than the classical architects", the architect is serving only himself and not his clients. I leave aside any responsibility to the art form. Nor am I suggesting that every old course is worth preserving. I am arguing that the architect has an obligation to fairly evaluate the existing course and its "bones" and to make a fair presentation to the client which acknowledges the value of that which exists. I think a club should consult with several architects and compare their evaluations and ideas. Fortunately Lehigh was able to do that. Incidentally, returning to another point, in considering those recommendations, it shouldn't matter whether the architects are "restoration specialists" or individuals who have designed and routed courses from scratch. There is little question that these are different, albeit related, skills. Why that matters in the context of evaluating renovated/restored courses is something I continue to try to understand.