Different architects, different styles.....

[TEPaul]

....on the same golf course and a restoration project!?

How would you begin to proceed on a course restoration with such an evolution? Let's say there are two architects represented on the same course---such as Ross and Maxwell or Macdonald and Tillinghast, or even Flynn and RTJ and that the holes of each are deemed to be good ones but the basic look and style is obviously different.

How would you begin planning a restoration of such a golf course?

[wsmorrison]

I hope Tom MacWood answers this question.

You've taken to asking a question a la Pat Mucci rather than including your answer.  One Pat Mucci is plenty  

Knowing you, Tom Paul, I'd say your response would have to include the test of time component.  If something works and the membership likes it, it should be given serious consideration for retaining a subsequent redesign even if it is out of character.  

If records exist, I would want to research why it was changed in the first place and then determine if the change was successful.  See how if the jigsaw puzzle fell apart a bit as a result.

Then there is a matter of degree, how much out of character and what would be the effect of restoring back to the original in the overall sense of a restoration.

Suppose a green was moved that impacted the next hole?  Suppose that green complex is out of character with the rest of the course?  I would definitely determine if the green could be moved back and tee length found to make it a good hole again.  Then you can fix the following hole as well.

A terrific example of this is the 14th and 15th at Cascades.  I cannot imagine why an architect of RTJ,Sr.'s caliber would move the green when there was plenty of room for a new back tee and so seriously compromise the 15th hole.  This is the worst offense I've seen in my limited studies.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I don't know if there's a right or a wrong answer.

One can just hope the club exercises due diligence, proper analylsis and makes a prudent decision.

Could one go wrong restoring ALL of a given architect's work ?

Could one go wrong restoring the BEST of each architect's work ?

How's that for an answer, Wayne ?  

[ian]

I though Gil made the right choice at Gulph Mills.  

I think keeping both is a very hard choice to make, because human nature makes you inclined to try to tie things together.

I don't think there are a lot of examples where you would want to keep two distinct examples of architecture on the same property, but occasionally (like Gulph Mills) it is the right choice.

Tom, can you offer another example, where a decision is nessasary?


Another (different) example is Mike DeVries is restoring both the Mackenzie and the Ross nines at St. Charles in Winnipeg. This will always be easier to deal with because people are more excepting of different nines than different individual holes.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Ian,

I agree. It's much simpler to restore 9-holes by MacKenzie and another separate nine by Ross than it is to decide what to do with a couple Maxwell holes at an original Ross design.

I'm really looking forward to seeing Gulph Mills again, post-Hanse.

As for St. Charles, there's a really unique opportunity there, in Winnipeg, to restore Ross and MacKenzie's individual 9-hole courses and to have Mike DeVries redo the club's third nine with his own ideas. Who knows if this will ever be completed though...

[TEPaul]

Wayne:

I don't want to include my own answer--not yet anyway, otherwise people like Pat just start arguing with me right off the bat and take the whole thread in other directions. I'd like to see the contributors think the question out for themselves first and give their own answers uninfluenced by mine!  

Of course Pat's answer without being able to argue with me (because I haven't given one) is really informative---basically:

"It depends".

That would be a great answer for a Master Plan Committee and architecture, wouldn't it?

Architect to Committee:

"How would the club and committee like me to handle the styles of two different architects on the course?"

Committtee:

"It Depends."

OR,

Committee to architect:

"How would you handle the different styles of two primary architects on our course?"

Architect:

"It depends."

And both might simultaneously ask each other;

"It depends on what?"


And then if you had a guy on the committee like Pat, he'd pipe up and ask:

"Who asked for this and what are their motives and do they really have the authority to do this?"

[Tom_Doak]

Tom:

There are certainly some courses where you would want to keep the work of more than one architect.  One good example is Sleepy Hollow in New York, where Tillinghast added on to Macdonald's original layout.  And some courses like Muirfield are clear evolutions over several designers' work.

Or you could hire Tom Fazio and Rees Jones to blow up two unmatched nines and make them new, as Sea Island did.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

If I were on the committee I would not respond as you indicated because I would have already ascertained the answer.

Any club that calls an architect in and says, what should we do has already lost their architectural compass.

And, if they had lost their way, perhaps soliciting and paying for three independent opinions might be the best way to initiate the process.

You should never forget that I"m a lot smarter then you look
 

[T_MacWood]

Every golf course is different, each course has a unique evolution and history.

If I were asked...I'd try to uncover as much as I could about the architectural history and make my decision based upon what I found....there is no magic formula. Among the possible recommendations: don't do anything evasive (it is at or near its architectural high point today) or redesign the entire course (its never had a high point and isn't worth a crap).

[Mark_Fine]

Tom MacWood has a good response.  Every situation is unique and "time" is required to determine the best course of action (no pun intended)  

Frankly other then new ones, there are few courses out there that I know of that have not be touched by more than one architect at some point in their existance.  

[TEPaul]

Tom Doak:

Thank you for that answer--it is almost precisely what I was looking for!  

The answer that "every course is different" to me is only half an answer or a partial answer. Does it actually inform you how to proceed in a restoration for instance? No, not really! So let's say you recognize that every course is different but you have a couse like GMGC with some good Ross and some good Maxwell, or Sleepy Hollow with some good Macdonald and some good Tillinghast and you want to do a restoration---how does the idea that "every course is different" inform you of how to proceed from there? If you have say Tillinghast and Macdonald on Sleepy Hollow, for instance, and you have eyes that see, you should already know you have two different styles! But the question is, once you know that, which frankly is pretty obvious, what do you do in a restoration?

[TEPaul]

"Every situation is unique and "time" is required to determine the best course of action (no pun intended)>

Mark:

"Time" is required to determine the best course of action? Is that a little like Chris Rock's hilarious routine that if you're casting a movie and you want Tom Cruise but all you can get is Jude Law----you WAIT! Or if you want Denzel Washington and all you can get is Chris Rock---YOU WAIT!!  

So if every course is unique and "time" is required to deterimine the best course of action---what should you do---JUST WAIT, and hope something eventually comes to you regarding what to do?    

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
If you are just "WAITING" as you implied, then you are wasting precious time.  You need to use that time to figure out just what is best for the golf course and for the members/golfers who will be playing it day in and day out.
Figuring that out is what takes time.

Tom you should talk to Gulph Mills Super.  He has heard one of my presentations.  See what he has to say about what I suggested be done with that "time"  
Mark