[Steve Burrows]

A real scenario:

A project is pitched to the membership/ownership of a “classic” course, originally designed by one of the greats, as restoration (a project consisting of reclamation of original green size on select holes).  However, in the field, even with historical aerials and ground level photos, the modern designer/project leader opts to ignore aspects of the restoration and leave his own touches, in favor of "ensuring" difficulty for the modern game and possible future tournaments.  Constantly, the designer remarks, “this is how ‘the original designer’ would do it if he were alive today,” or “‘the original designer’ would want it to be more difficult.”

Two issues:

First, even with those designers who documented and published their design philosophy and theory, it is difficult, if not impossible, to accurately conjecture on how they would design today, given changes in technology, etc,.

Second, to whom do modern designers owe their allegiance?
   -the original designer, whose legacy should be preserved.
   -the owners/members, who paid for a project that they are not truly seeing.
    -the owners/members who do actually believe that perceived difficulty is the only way to keep their course relevant.
    -their self, who wants to leave a legacy of his own.
   -the players of the future, who may not be challenged by an antiquated design.
   -others?

[corey miller]

If we are talking "ethics", the most important element is who is hired to do the work and can they ethically work within the constraints of the club.

[Steve Burrows]

So it's fine to alter a course, perhaps even beyond recognition, so long as it is the consensus of the membership?

[Dean Paolucci]

Steve - I just went through this process first hand over the last 3+ years.  First, be clear, is this a restoration or a renovation?  If restoration is what was voted on then the guiding tenant is to return the course to it original design.  Of course, to the extent you have "historical aerials and ground level photos" you should recreate the design.  Where you do not have accurate information here is where the choice of the right architect is imperative.  He should not superimpose his vision but, think as the original designer would.  There is no place in restoration for personal monument building.  I would hold the architects feet to the fire to stay focused on the original intent.

[Steve Burrows]

Dean:
That's exactly my point. "Restoration" was sold, but renovation was achieved, and no one standing there seemed to appreciate the difference, except for me, and my voice was not one of power.  The superintendent and the head pro (whose voice should have had less authority than even mine), were on board with the designer, explaining to the members the alterations as mentioned earlier, that that they would be more beneficial in attracting future tournaments.

Honestly, I would have been totally fine with what transpired, had the project been explained as renovation and not restoration, but as it stands, you're right, the project is incomplete and a selfish vision of a modern designer.

[Mike_Young]

Dean,
you say "Where you do not have accurate information here is where the choice of the right architect is imperative.  He should not superimpose his vision but, think as the original designer would."
Did you use a golf architect or a "restoration expert"......do you think the dead guys would rather have a modern day architect that had his own work on the ground or some guy that claims to be a restoration specialist.....I personally don't believe there is any merit in a restoration....maybe a sympathetic renovation......restoration would eliminate cartpaths and irrigation.....as I have said before the resoration business is just a cottage industry and a fad that will go away....you just hope clubs outlast it....

[Phil_the_Author]

Steve,

I hope you take this question in the right way. You wrote, "That's exactly my point. "Restoration" was sold, but renovation was achieved, and no one standing there seemed to appreciate the difference, except for me, and my voice was not one of power."

I don't want to read anything into what you wrote, so I was wondering why YOU are the only person in the membership that could see that what was done was not as advertised and that it was done in a manner deliberately ignoring what was contracted for?

Could it be that you are incorrect in your view?

I'm just trying to understand your motivation in the question as it seems it was aksednot so much seeking information but rather agreement with a viewpoint. Now there isn't anything wrong with taking a stand and asking for support, but I'm not certain if that was what you ae/were seeking, since the bottom line appears to be that you actually liked the way it turned out. You also wrote, "Honestly, I would have been totally fine with what transpired, had the project been explained as renovation and not restoration"

Please help me understand as my brain is apparently a bit dense tonight.  

[Steve Burrows]

Phillip,
What I suppose that I left out of these past posts (and for that I apologize) is that I am not a member at this particular club; I was on the grounds crew at the time.  That is why my voice at the time had such little power.  We were doing the work, mostly in-house, with the on-site consultation of a golf course architect.  I happened not to agree with the direction of the project, as it was in contrast to how it was originally proposed, but could only say my peace, and then do the work anyway.    

Further, the motivation and intent behind this discussion itself (also left unsaid and, therefore, unclear) is not really me taking a one side or another on this topic, but more of a sophist argument, trying instead to spark converation and perhaps insight.

If I had to pick a side, though, like I mentioned, I'm OK with the complete destruction, the complete restoration, or a partial restoration of a given course, so long as the intent of the membership/ownership is clear and the directives are carried out deliberately and fully by the designer.  If that meant dozing Pine Valley, then so be it.  I wouldn't agree with that one and I would sooner quit a job than be a part of it, but I would respect their decision to do so, should they ever come to that unlikely conclusion.  

[Tom_Doak]

Steve:

This is what has been bothering me for years.  The truth is that most members of most clubs have no idea about the merits of a restoration, they just fall for the sales line and pay little attention to the details, except for a few members who want to meddle in the details to achieve their own ends.

[Steve Burrows]

And, for some designers and construction crews, a job is, quite simply, a job, whether it's a local muny or an historically significant golf course.  There is no value assigned to the project except for whether or not they and their family eats dinner.  That is where this discussion becomes about the ethics.

[Jason Blasberg]

So it's fine to alter a course, perhaps even beyond recognition, so long as it is the consensus of the membership?

Yes, it's called property rights Steve.  Are we doing the historical preservation thing again . . . ?

[Jason Blasberg]

I'm not addressing the failure to provide what was contracted for in Steve's first example b/c while I'm not sure it's unethical, it's certainly a breach of contract for which I'd gladly post the "modern gca's" balls to the wall over if such an intentional deviation from the authorized plan was in fact done.

The real issue here is that this thread is fundamentally flawed in that it confuses theoretical parameters . . . golf course restoration (or renovation) has nothing to do with ethics unless you've assumed a certain ethical starting position.

In this case, Steve, it's obvious that you've assumed that pure restoration is the normative goal and thus to achieve (or try to achieve) anything less is somehow "unethical."  

Your question has assumed away the answer thereby rendering this topic, as usual, impotent.  

There is only one rule to be observed in golf course restoration projects and that is that property rights trump all others . . . the closure we all get to accepting this reality  (including the most ardent restorationsists) the more adapt the field will be to deal with it.  The result will be more, not less, classic gca resurrected.  

To approach this from an ethical perspective, however, is both absurd and a complete non-starter when it comes to Board presentations.  

Learn better how to sell restorations and better restorations you will find.

[T_MacWood]

I don't believe all old courses are canidates for full blown restoration. I'd be interested to know who the original architect was, and the identy of the course...(although I can understand why you wouldn't want to reveal that info).

But your description doesn't sound like this is a full blown restoration...reclaiming lost greens and such. I suspect this is not the first time this has occured with this architect, so it may be a case of buyer beware. From the sounds of it this might have been a project better done in house, without an architect.

Back to your original question, if the architect sold a restoration and was hired based upon that understanding...his subsequent redesign work is unethical in my book. The membership bears some responsibility too, they should've either monitored the situation better or not given in to his redesign ideas (if restoration was the goal).

[Tom_Doak]

Jason:

Everybody can SELL "restorations", that's why everybody claims to be doing them, even if they aren't.  The devil is in the details, and in many cases, the details are not known to the entire membership, leaving a lot of leeway for the architect and the committee.

Still, I would argue there should be a fair amount of leeway in any master plan.  Several times I've figured out something interesting about a course during construction, based on what we dug up.  In some cases the club has authorized me to go ahead with those changes right away, which could be interpreted the same way that Steve started this thread ... but I'd rather get it right the first time than have to come back several more times to get the work approved and done.

[ForkaB]

Tom D

As an artist in your own right, why should you/would you want to "restore" something vaguely ideated by some old dead guy rather than renovate to make that "something" a better golf hole or a part of a better golf course, using your own standards, abilities and ideals, and the ideals of the owners of that property?

If we "restored" everything, we would still be living in mud huts and caves, like Tommy Naccarato and Tom MacWood.......

Rich

[T_MacWood]

....no, we'd all be living in A&C inspired homes designed by Greene & Greene, Lutyens and in your neighborhood Lorimer.

Speaking of which...good luck trying to find an architect to redesign those architects above's finest designs. Architecture appear to have a better appreciation of the history of their art and protecting the legacy of their art.

[ForkaB]

So, Tom M

What exactly would it be like living in an A&C home, vs. where you live today?  What would be better about it than your current abode?  What would be worse?  Should we all be living in A&C homes?  If so, pray why?

Rich G

[T_MacWood]

So, Tom M

What exactly would it be like living in an A&C home, vs. where you live today?  What would be better about it than your current abode?  What would be worse?  Should we all be living in A&C homes?  If so, pray why?

Rich G

Rich
Why don't you ask Ran....I believe he lives in home designed by one of the Stickley brothers.

What would be better about a Greene & Greene house--for example--compared to my own...the craftmanship, the attention to detail, the materials used and the overall design...the way the spaces relate to one another and the way the building relates to the site, and the site itself

We should live in whatever home we chose and can afford...mud hut, cave, A&C, modern, colonial revival, Japanese, adobe, etc, etc. I'd love to live in a home designed by Voysey, unfortunately right now that is not practical...I'd also love to belong to Cypress Point, Pine Valley or NGLA.

[ForkaB]

Thanks, Tom.  I'll ask Ran at Hoylake, if the golf does not get in the way.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Steve,

Since there is no accepted definition of restoration - and if there is one, it probably is less strict than what most here would propose, I doubt that any ethical lines were clearly crossed.

I have only done a few restorations, and even going into it with the best of intents, there will always be some value judgements, and every one on the committee, including the gca may have different values.  

Or, the same general goal other than a particular hole that really, really gives them trouble, and then they decide that design is "no good."  And, it may not be, so someone with persuasive skills convinces everyone that one hole changing is still a sympathetic change, and its still a restoration.  It probably is.  

But what about when the second, or third, or fourth hole gets changed.  Sometimes, the philosophy of what was sold gets changed mid stream because who can resist improving a golf course when given a chance?

I agree with Tom - more gca's sell restorations than actually do them, at least by the strictest definition of the word.  But most members don't really seem to care - they want improved playing conditions more than anything, holes they don't play well (or that by general agreement don't play well any more) fixed, maybe more length, etc.  Generally, they want the course to look approximately the way it always has, rather than add waterfalls, etc.,  They are worried more about details than the big picture - i.e. "That cart path is too close in play".

I don't think those successful business people who are club members have the time or even inclination in the vast majority of cases to study and know what a restoration is.  For that matter, they may with some justification want it restored to their idealized vision of what it was rather than what it truly was.  (think of the howls of enlarging greens back to their former size on a course that is not short and sporty)

[Tom_Doak]

Rich:

I don't think every golf course is worthy of restoration -- not by a long shot.  Camargo, The Valley Club, SFGC, those are the exceptions to the rule.

But in general, I prefer doing restorations to "renovations".  On a renovation you start with 18 holes and finish with 18, and it is completely a matter of opinion whether you have improved the golf course or not.  I guess that's true of restorations as well, but at least you are honoring the work of a past master on one of his best old projects.

At SFGC, five years ago when we were rebuilding the greens, I asked if there was any particular reason to preserve Harold Sampson's version of the 15th hole instead of changing it into something decent.  We were given the go-ahead to change it on the fly, and half a day later, it was a lot better -- so much so, that some members used the quality of that hole as an argument for restoring the three Tillinghast holes as we did this spring.  I just told them I couldn't buy their argument that my 15th was better than "Little Tillie", unless they wanted to give me a co-design credit!    (I was kidding them of course.)

[Steve Burrows]

What if we changed the assumptions a bit:

Suppose that you were contacted by the membership for a RENOVATION, but, upon evaluation of the course, it's history and significance, you (as designer) felt that RESTORATION was the way to go.  Would you still participate in the project, knowing that what you do would be incomplete, but without recourse to adequately convince the membership of their oversight?  Would you still be doing service to the membership, the original designer, and future generations who would then not get a chance to experience the nuances of the original that had been lost over time?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()