Renovation, Restoration or Remodel/Redesign?)

[Geoffrey Childs]

Renovation – Restoration – Remodel

Can we discuss our ideas on what constitutes each of these words with respect to work done to golf courses after the original architect is no longer around to take care of it?  

The genesis of this thread comes from Tom MacWood’s use of the term redesign when referring to courses like Bethpage Black, Engineers and others.  Perhaps we could understand one another if we knew what we used as a reference for each term.

Bethpage Black to me is a semi-sensitive restoration based on putting back numerous bunkers that had changed between 1938 and 1969 when I first saw the course.  It is mostly intact with a few bunkers moved a bit.  I don’t like the new work on #8 and 14 so I think its going backwards a bit from a couple of years ago.  Importantly for me, the course plays as it did before and probably even more so in line with the original shot values intended. #18 is another story but the greens or routing were not altered and overall I think Tillinghast would be pleased. (renovation, restoration or remodel/redesign?)

Engineers has been discussed a lot recently.  Some greens were modified by Trip Davis.  He left the routing as he found it but there is the option to play #3 as a par 4 and use the restored 2 or 20 hole in the routing. (renovation, restoration or remodel/redesign?)

Yeamans Hall is often termed a restoration and yet every rebuilt green is an interpretation of what Raynor built because teh plans for the greens were not available.  Many bunkers have not yet been put back in place and a couple like the flanking greenside bunkers on #9 look to me un-Raynor-like.  The routing is all intact and played as built. (renovation, restoration or remodel/redesign?)


Fenway Golf Club was done by Gil Hanse.  All the bunkering was restored as per the old photographs.  However, one fairway bunker complex on #5 was subsequently moved out from the tee to challenge longer drives on the left.  All the greens were expanded out to their original sizes.  There are still LOTS of trees that can impede intended lines of play and that hide some Dev Emmet mounding. (renovation, restoration or remodel/redesign?)

Apawamis Club had Gil Hanse soften some of their greens.  He did so but I believe the original routing remains. (renovation, restoration or remodel/redesign?)

San Francisco Golf Club recently restored the old three holes that were changed in response to a highway being built and anticipation of losing property.  The bunkering is intact (and spectacular) yet Doak softened I think a couple of greens in response to club demands. (Renovation, restoration or remodel/redesign?)

Pasatiempo – Doak has removed many trees yet it is still filled with trees that SEVERLY affect the way MacKenzie intended play.  Bunkers were magnificently redone to as close as possible the original except for several near the barranca  on #16 and 18. At least one green (#11) has been redone and slope softened by Doak (renovation, restoration or remodel/redesign?)

Yale – This has been documented numerous times.  Between 1934 and the time a superintendent altered the course in the 1950’s NUMEROUS changes to bunkers, greens and even hillsides on alps and double plateau were butchered.  Roger Rulewich further split up and softened bunkers on the front nine but tried to restore them on the back nine and put back lost bunkers on #2, 12, 13 and 17. Subsequently, the new superintendent took out 1600 trees, restored mowing patterns, alternate fairway on 18 and expanded out all the greens. (renovation, restoration or remodel/redesign?)

NGLA – starting with Karl Olson and extending to Bill Salliniti they have worked in house and I believe in consultation with George Bahto to remove every internal tree on the course, expand greens, fairway and reclaim bunkers. (renovation, restoration or remodel/redesign?)

Riviera – Tom Fazio has changed a few greens saying they were as Thomas intended.  He added the alternate fairway on #8 and bunker to #7.  The routing is intact except for an alternate green on #10 that is in use part of the time (renovation, restoration or remodel/redesign?)

Cypress Point – In house work has restored many of the frilly edged bunkers. Much of the sandy dunesland waste areas are grassed over giving a much different look then at the time it originally opened. (renovation, restoration or remodel/redesign?)

Pine Valley – Tom Fazio consulted on this work which added a second green to hole #8 while leaving the old green intact. There are thousands of trees still hiding bunkers in the woods and shot values are certainly impacted.  The old waste areas have been sanitized to make play easier.  Routing still intact except perhaps for the alternate fairway on #17 being in the trees.  (renovation, restoration or remodel/redesign?)

There are other examples that I am less familiar with such as Baltimore CC where some of their greens have been softened I think by Ron Forse.  Please chime in with renovation, restoration or remodel if you know details of these projects.

These are real world examples from several architects.  What does the GCA community think constitutes a restoration, remodel and renovation?  I know it would help me to understand posts from several of you.

[Jason Blasberg]

Geoff:

Not quite what you've asked but I wrote the below on a thread I started about a month ago and it was an analysis i did re: these concepts at that time.

“Pure Restoration” vs. “Re-Design” and “Restoration Attempts”:

The phrase "Re-Design" has been used to criticize recent restoration projects and it has been used in contrast to what I’ll call a "Pure Restoration."  The following explores these concepts in the context of the author’s view of the fundamental nature of architecturally sound golf courses.   In the interests of full disclosure this author believes that it is practically impossible to perform a “Pure Restoration” but rather I insist that what can be performed are “Restoration Attempts,” which I firmly endorse and consider to be entirely different from “Re-Design” which should be avoided entirely with sound designs.  

A “Re-Design” is the fundamental altering of course design and design elements.  It necessarily requires changes in routing, angles of play, the reconstruction of greens and green sites.  In short, if one played a “Re-Designed” golf course they would hardly recognize it from its former self.
 
At the opposite end of the spectrum is a “Pure Restoration” which is the process of returning a golf course to it’s original state as exactly as possible.  It adds no bunkers if they weren’t originally there, removes no original bunkers and very seldom if ever moves bunker locations.  It does not lengthen a course, it does not permit trees to grow and it does not plant trees where they weren’t.  It does not move tee locations and it certainly never alters a putting surface.  If today one played a course that went through a Pure Restoration and was designed in 1917, everything within the confines of the course would be nearly the same in 1917.

A “Restoration Attempt” lies somewhere between a Re-Design and a Pure Restoration, although it is far closer to the Pure Restoration end of the spectrum.  It is a restoration consistent with the original design in appearance, strategy, and playability.  It takes license, however, with certain design elements because it must consider the course in the context of the Modern world with, among other things, its current club and course maintenance technology.  It accounts for property restrictions and membership preferences.  It also requires more thought from the restoring architect.

When doing a Restoration Attempt the restoring architect should obtain and study as much historical data as possible.  In this process he should consider how the course likely played given the time when it opened.  For instance, he must try to understand which hazards were dominant in those days, which were secondary, which were window dressing?  He must then apply that to what's on the ground in front of him and what is possible given current property restrictions and/or current budgetary restrictions and/or current membership priorities and preferences.  

The result will never be a Pure Restoration nor should it be, in my opinion.  What it should be is a thoughtful attempt to get as close as one can to the design architect's intent (to the best it can be discerned) given the current environment in which this living thing of a golf course exists.  

[Jason Blasberg]

Apawamis Club had Gil Hanse soften some of their greens.  He did so but I believe the original routing remains. (renovation, restoration or remodel/redesign?)

San Francisco Golf Club recently restored the old three holes that were changed in response to a highway being built and anticipation of losing property.  The bunkering is intact (and spectacular) yet Doak softened I think a couple of greens in response to club demands. (Renovation, restoration or remodel/redesign?)

Pasatiempo – Doak has removed many trees yet it is still filled with trees that SEVERLY affect the way MacKenzie intended play.  Bunkers were magnificently redone to as close as possible the original except for several near the barranca  on #16 and 18. At least one green (#11) has been redone and slope softened by Doak (renovation, restoration or remodel/redesign?)

There sure seems to be alot of green softening, recontouring being done out there.  And by a couple of folks who didn't want to touch ECCs greens . . . interesting
 
I would add that C&C recontoured a few greens at Prairie Dunes, including the 1st, plus they also added new tees back and to the right of 9, way back on13, back and to the right on 16 and back and to the left on 17.  All of these tees beside 13 dramatically change the angle of play off the tee but they are all great improvements for the modern game.  I suspect, however, that Tom MW would call this a remodel, and, even if it is, it's better than before!

Also, why isin't anyone bellowing about how Travis "re-designed or remodeled" Garden City?  Is it because it was so long ago it counts as original work?  Or perhaps it's because it's a better course for it?

[Geoffrey Childs]

Jason

That's a good start.  I agree with your re-design concept which I also think remodel applies.

I don't necessarily agree with your "pure-restoration" concept as I think new tees are not out of the question.

I think where we need to clarify our thoughts are just how much we are going to allow playability to be affected by keeping things as they were or is it "acceptable" to try to make it play as "intended" (whatever that may be) given the modern game.  How much tinkering is allowed before its a renovation and then how much more to a redesign.

[Geoffrey Childs]

Apawamis Club had Gil Hanse soften some of their greens.  He did so but I believe the original routing remains. (renovation, restoration or remodel/redesign?)

San Francisco Golf Club recently restored the old three holes that were changed in response to a highway being built and anticipation of losing property.  The bunkering is intact (and spectacular) yet Doak softened I think a couple of greens in response to club demands. (Renovation, restoration or remodel/redesign?)

Pasatiempo – Doak has removed many trees yet it is still filled with trees that SEVERLY affect the way MacKenzie intended play.  Bunkers were magnificently redone to as close as possible the original except for several near the barranca  on #16 and 18. At least one green (#11) has been redone and slope softened by Doak (renovation, restoration or remodel/redesign?)

There sure seems to be alot of green softened, recontouring being done out there.  And by a couple of folks who didn't want to touch ECCs greens . . . interesting
 
I would add that C&C recontoured a few greens at Prairie Dunes, including the 1st, plus they also added new tees back and to the right of 9, way back on13, back and to the right on 16 and back and to the left on 17.  All of these tees beside 13 dramatically change the angle of play off the tee but they are all great improvements for the modern game.  I suspect, however, that Tom MW would call this a remodel, and, even if it is, it's better than before!

With all this softening, recontouring and new tees changing angles of play going on at the top rated clubs in the country I absolutely baffled about the criticism towards Engineers.    

Jason - that's exactly what I'm trying to clarify here on GCA.  Where do we draw the lines and what is OK and what is not - and why.

Is Prairie Dunes OK and Engineers not - or easier Riviera not?

What degree of sensitivity is allowed?

[Ryan Farrow]

It seems that most classic courses receive a lot of restoration but there are always times and places where the architect or club decides to stray away from restoration and decide to "update or modernize" a course.

Has there ever been a complete restoration disregarding added length with new tees? I know it’s not reasonable to say we want the course to play like it did on opening day or maybe 60 years ago since most of the courses being restored evolved and got better after opening day. Is there a consensus best restoration?

[Forrest Richardson]

I think the terms are often misused. This might be the more interesting discussion.

Mark Fine and I spent several words discussing the differences in Bunkers, Pits & Other Hazards. Our general conclusion is that a restoration attempts to put back things lost to time; with the nuance being that at some point it must be generally decided exactly what point in time one is striving for...a renovation is much a modernization (e.g., updating irrigation, drainage, tee surfaces, etc.)...and a remodel is any degree of change to a course in its strategy and play (e.g., changing the location or adding tees would constitute a remodel.)

Of course, there will always be hybrid examples of these. At the Arizona Biltmore Adobe Course (with Tommy N.'s input) we did all three. Some bunkers were restored...others areas remodeled...and many portions of the course, that were previously changed (remodeled), were renovated to a better condition.

[Geoffrey Childs]

It seems that most classic courses receive a lot of restoration but there are always times and places where the architect or club decides to stray away from restoration and decide to "update or modernize" a course.

Has there ever been a complete restoration disregarding added length with new tees? I know it’s not reasonable to say we want the course to play like it did on opening day or maybe 60 years ago since most of the courses being restored evolved and got better after opening day. Is there a consensus best restoration?

Ryan-

Of those I've seen that required a lot of work, Fenway Golf Club is the closest thign I've seen.  Yet- As I said, a left side fairway bunker complex on #5 seen here before it was moved

have subsequently relocated 50 yards or so up the fairway.  The newly restored stream has stonework (probably not there originally) and an irrigation pond put in beyond and right of  7 and 9 fairways. Also a hideous 14th tee made using the fill from the pond.  Remove another 1000 trees and its probably pretty close to original.

NGLA is probably a pretty good example without any outside major work.

[Geoffrey Childs]

I think the terms are often misused. This might be the more interesting discussion.

Mark Fine and I spent several words discussing the differences in Bunkers, Pits & Other Hazards. Our general conclusion is that a restoration attempts to put back things lost to time; with the nuance being that at some point it must be generally decided exactly what point in time one is striving for...a renovation is much a modernization (e.g., updating irrigation, drainage, tee surfaces, etc.)...and a remodel is any degree of change to a course in its strategy and play (e.g., changing the location or adding tees would constitute a remodel.)

Of course, there will always be hybrid examples of these. At the Arizona Biltmore Adobe Course (with Tommy N.'s input) we did all three. Some bunkers were restored...others areas remodeled...and many portions of the course, that were previously changed (remodeled), were renovated to a better condition.

Forrest

Interesting that you would say that adding new tees (or their relocation) would constitute a remodel. So you would say that adding length to a 430 yard par 4 to 460 constitutes a remodel?  I would disagree with that as it only adds flexibility and might make the hole play more like it did in the past.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Geoff,
Probably too simplistic a view, but:
redesign: To make a revision in the appearance or function of.
Keeping the elements in the same place, but making changes, i.e., deepening a bunker, changing the contours of a green, adding length.
remodel To make over in structure or style.
Taken to the extreme, you remove the old guy's name and insert the new guy's name on the card.
renovate:To restore to an earlier condition
Pick a time frame, take it there, make no changes from that period.  
restore To bring back to an original condition
Very close to a renovation but the date is non-negotiable, it's 'opening day'.  

If you make any changes when doing #'s 3 & 4, like some of the things in #'s 1 & 2, then  it's a 'sympathetic renovation' or a 'sympathetic restoration'


 
 

[Forrest Richardson]

Geoffrey —

If an 18th Century hotel restores the bathrooms, it is likely you will not have hot water. By adding hot water and modern plumbing, they have renovated and remodeled the bathrooms. They may have restored many of the touches (as best they can), but it is clearly a remodel, or updating. They have added something for flexibility, not to mention comfort.

I believe this get to the heart of my comment that there are hybrid examples, and this is mostly the norm. A new tee constitutes a remodeled element/area of a course, while a restored tee will be one that is put back after years of no use or overgrown trees.

[Geoffrey Childs]

Jim & Forrest

Thank you - I'm learning a bit about terminology.

I suspect we might get less agreement about what constitutes acceptable practice.

[Forrest Richardson]

Thankfully you did not bring up the other r's

refurbish
rebuild
retro-ize
re-tool
raze

On my website is On Course — A Dictionary of Golf Course Terms. I think many of the "r" words are covered.

http://www.golfgroupltd.com/golf_course_terms.html

[Jason Blasberg]

Mark Fine and I spent several words discussing the differences in Bunkers, Pits & Other Hazards. Our general conclusion is that a restoration attempts to put back things lost to time; with the nuance being that at some point it must be generally decided exactly what point in time one is striving for...a renovation is much a modernization (e.g., updating irrigation, drainage, tee surfaces, etc.)...and a remodel is any degree of change to a course in its strategy and play (e.g., changing the location or adding tees would constitute a remodel.)

Forrest:

Based upon your concept of remodel do you think that C&C remodeled Prairie Dunes? . . . And if so, are you as upset about this as Mr. MacWood?  

Jason

ps this is not a set up question, I'm just rather shocked to read you say that changing tee locations is a "remodel."

[T_MacWood]

Geoffrey
There is another important catagory that you failed to mention, preservation. If a golf course evolves gracefully...like Cypress Point or Riviera or Merion as an examples...I prefer preserving. Rebuilding bunkers destroys all the original work.

Cut down trees, expand fairways and greens, but don't start digging up those bunkers.

[Forrest Richardson]

Jason — I have not been to Prairie Dunes, so I have no personal knowledge. From what I recall there has been much work done there — both restorative and remodel. As for Tom McW., I cannot ever imagine getting as upset as I have heard him.  

My viewpoint of remodeling is nearly always the same...

I applaud and embrace change as one of golf's most interesting facets — that golf courses are not supposed to stay the same...that the hand of man, the wrath of weather, the beating of golfers and the tick-tock of time is all at play...and it goes on all the time. It usually does not strike me as "awful" or a "travesty" that someone remodeled a particular golf course or hole. I take great delight in learning what I can about the original design and intent. And I equally take great delight in finding out about the remodel, change or tweak. To me, it is all part of the fun.

Please note that I do not like all change, for I am a critic. But, then  again, I do not like all original design either.

The neat part of golf is that it can always be better. The batting averages on whether things get better...that is another matter.

[Geoffrey Childs]

Geoffrey
There is another important catagory that you failed to mention, preservation. If a golf course evolves gracefully...like Cypress Point or Riviera or Merion as an examples...I prefer preserving. Rebuilding bunkers destroys all the original work.

Cut down trees, expand fairways and greens, but don't start digging up those bunkers.

Tom

Thanks for including preservation.  It certainly is part of the equasion.

Preservation can be bothersome in my opinion just as the other categories.  Who is to say what is evolving gracefully as you put it?  You might think that the overgrowth of grasses on the former dunes at Cypress Point is graceful evolution while I might classify it as neglect.  The bunkers at Merion were said by some to be a beautiful and graceful evolution but some others might claim they were semi-unplayable non-draining messes.  Is bunker drainage important? If so they needed to be rebuilt. Riviera had an evolution of those wild barrancas into something much tamer.  I like the wild look of the barrancas at LACC much better.  Is this graceful evolution or neglect?  Should they be restored to their former state?  

I think these arre all tough questions and certainly ones that can't IMHO be solved by a single simple solution such as "preservation".

[T_MacWood]

Geoffrey
There is another important catagory that you failed to mention, preservation. If a golf course evolves gracefully...like Cypress Point or Riviera or Merion as an examples...I prefer preserving. Rebuilding bunkers destroys all the original work.

Cut down trees, expand fairways and greens, but don't start digging up those bunkers.

Tom

Thanks for including preservation.  It certainly is part of the equasion.

Preservation can be bothersome in my opinion just as the other categories.  Who is to say what is evolving gracefully as you put it?  

You might think that the overgrowth of grasses on the former dunes at Cypress Point is graceful evolution while I might classify it as neglect.

Why? What do you have against the dune grasses? If you don't like the dune grass...pull it out, no big deal. Isn't that an anciliary issue?

 
The bunkers at Merion were said by some to be a beautiful and graceful evolution but some others might claim they were semi-unplayable non-draining messes.

Is it possible to fix the drainage without destroying the surrounds? I would think so.

Riviera had an evolution of those wild barrancas into something much tamer.  I like the wild look of the barrancas at LACC much better.

LACC has barrancas; Riviera has a wash - two different kinds of natural hazards. The barrranca's at LACC were always more dramatic than Riviera's wash, although the wash has its own interesting appeal. The size and nature of Riviera's wash was effected by the flood of '39...Mother Nature not neglect. I'm not sure if its possible to restore the original state of the wash or not.    

I think these arre all tough questions and certainly ones that can't IMHO be solved by a single simple solution such as "preservation".

Cut down trees, expand fairways, re-establish lost green surfaces, pull out dune grass, repair drainage...I still don't see the need to dig up and rebuild gracefully evolved bunkers.

[Geoffrey Childs]

Tom

Can you tell me or give me an example of where a club left the bunker surrounds intact and redid the internal drainage?  Do you approve of the rebuilt bunkers at Cypress Point with their plexiglass or fiberglass molds to keep the frilly shapes?

The wash/barranca at Riviera looks nothing like it used to and in fact its a manacured depression at the current time. If that is graceful evolution then we have very different tastes.  Would you put it back? (Have you been to RIviera?)

You casually say - pull the dunes grasses at Cypress Point as if its no big deal and yet they play a HUGE ROLE in the visuals and aesthetics of the course.  You want the beach bunkers restored at Engineers - why so casual about this major visual at CPC?

Is Prairie Dumes a remodel or redesign from the work done by Coore and Crenshaw?

Did Doak redesign SFGC and Pasatiempo when he softened greens? Did Gil Hanse remodel and redesign Apawamis?

I still don't think its as simple as you write -"Cut down trees, expand fairways, re-establish lost green surfaces, pull out dune grass, repair drainage...I still don't see the need to dig up and rebuild gracefully evolved bunkers."

[T_MacWood]

Geoffrey
They repaired the drainage of bunkers at Ohio State and Scioto without effecting the exterior.

No I'm not a fan of the concrete bunkers at CPC. Is there a bunker at CPC remaining that MacKenzie, Hunter or the Irish crew constructed?

I think Geoff or Lynn Shackelford would be better qualified to answer your question regarding the wash...I recall Geoff saying something about it but I don't remember if he said it was possible or not. I don't think it was possible.

Strong designed the beach bunkers, they were his trademark hazard...MacKenzie didn't design the dune. If you don't like the dune grass I don't have a problem pulling it out. No big deal.

I know C&C did some work at Prarie Dunes but I have no idea what they did....what exactly did they do?

Yes, Doak redesigned those greens at SFGC & Pasa (and Gil at Apawamis...is Apawamis in the same class as the other two?), not only is that unfortunate because the original work of Tilly & MacKenzie was destroyed forever, its a waste of money IMO. I've said this before few times and I think you agreed.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

First of all, I do not and will not argue anymore with you whether the work done at Bethpage can be classified as a particular thing as we have decidedly different views on the subject. I am very curious over a statement you made about preservation and a particular aspect of it.

You wrote, "Cut down trees, expand fairways, re-establish lost green surfaces, pull out dune grass, repair drainage...I still don't see the need to dig up and rebuild gracefully evolved bunkers."

Again, without commenting on the quality of the work done, as that will only bring about needless arguing and no discussion, I am wondering how you would describe the bunkers at Bethpage Black PRIOR to the work done? Were these examples of "gracefully evolved bunkers" that did NOT need digging up and rebuilding?

Geoffrey, you asked about the work being done at 5 Farms. Several of the greens have been softened a few years back because of the severity and green speeds. The course is now undergoing a fairly major job to lengthen it for the Senior Tour Championship that it will host begining in 2007 and also redo greens & bunkers to bring them as close to Tilly's original intent.

I have seen the master plan and toured the course with club manager Greg Jones and discussed all of the proposed work. One of the most important aspects is an attempt to protect shot angles so that holes may challenge the senior tour players. In order to do this, several fairway bunkers are being shifted forward and out, thus preserving the original choice of cutting corners or carrying them for reward or risk.

One of the interesting conundrums facing the club were a number of dirt-bottomed bunker-like depressions behind about 8 of the greens. No one was able to ever remember there ever being sand in them and yet they have the look and shape of bunkers that Tilly would have designed.

Fortunately, and just several weeks ago, a series of aerial photographs from 1932 taken for Golf Illustrated for an article about the 1932 Amateur that was about to be held there, were found and sent to the club and Keith Foster (architect). They clearly showed these as bunkers filled with bright, white sand.

As a result, instead of these "dirt holes" being filled in, they are discussing how to go about reclaiming and restoring them in the project.

[T_MacWood]

Phil
I said when the bunkers evolved gracefully I favor preservation...the bunkers at Bethpage did not evolve gracefully.

Would you favor - at some point in the future - faithfully restoring Tilly's original bunkering at Bethpage-Black?

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom, I said, "First of all, I do not and will not argue anymore with you whether the work done at Bethpage can be classified as a particular thing as we have decidedly different views on the subject."

We have differing opinions and it is best to leave them at that.

I will take your statement that, "I said when the bunkers evolved gracefully I favor preservation...the bunkers at Bethpage did not evolve gracefully." to mean that you believe some major work needed to be done, including digging up what was there (bunkers).

I accept that you believe the work was not done well and/or correctly.  

By the way, I believe you would be interested in knowing that I am trying to get the greens further expanded so that many of the areas on the outside portions that were never recovered will be. These contain a number of areas that would provide some pretty severe undulations and great potential pin positions.

[T_MacWood]

Phil
If I thought the bunkers were done well and/or correctly why would I ask if you favored restoring them faithfully at some point in the future.

Your non-answer to my question says it all.

[Mike_Young]

Geoff,
Seems all of our definitions are opinions.  
If I was to relate the Renovation, Restoration or Remodel to an original piece of Stickley furniture which is not a dynamic product such as a golf course I would say the following:
The original was built of quartersawn oak with a shellac finish and therefore a RESTORATION would need to have a broken leg replaced with quartersawn oak and finished with shellac even though there are much better more durable finishes available today.  A RENOVATION could take the same chair and replace the leg with a flat sawn piece of oak and the chair could be finished out in one of the newer more durable polyurethanes. A REMODEL could be where the height of the chair was increased using either quartersawn oak or flat sawn or even adding to the original legs and then finished in either finish but it would have been adapted to work with the taller person of today.
Now the RESTORATION would probably be used if the chair were to be displayed in a museum.  The RENOVATION most likely if the owner wished to maintain a close resemblance to the original and the REMODEL if the owner wanted a chair that functioned well for today.
For me all have their place.
BUT as for golf.....I am of the opinion that this is a cottage industry that has worked its way into the industry because new construction has dwindled.  We have the dead guy societies telling clubs what they should do like a fan club managing the New York Yankees.  We have clubs hypng the names of the dead guys that built their courses because it is much cheaper than paying for the signature of the day.  And we have all kinds of expert's  running around that have never even designed a golf course with their name on it but can read the dead guy's mind.  
We have done everything we can to complicate this stuff and it is just not complicated.  
So for me...if you like RESTORATION...would it stand to reason one should play with clubs of the era and maintain the course with the fertilizers, chemicals and machinery of the era.  If one likes RENOVATION.... would it be fair to say he plays a course exactly like the  restored version in measurement and details but with maintenance practices and clubs of today..and if one likes REMODEL...would it be fair to say he remodels the course where it adapts to the present golfer and equipment in terms of length, green slope and maintenance practices.
IMHO there just isn't much room for my definition of restoration, there is some room for renovation but do not expect to protect par and most courses that need to function and survive on cashflow will chose remodel.  
JMO
Mike