Renovate or restore?

[Jim Bearden]

Depending on the course and the designer, I think the better the course the answer is restore. That said the only change to me is to extend tees to lengthen a course because of advances in technology. What say you?

[Tom_Doak]

Jim:

Welcome.  Apparently you haven't been lurking too long ... this subject is the fodder of hundreds of past threads.  I'll let the usual suspects weigh in, but generally, I agree with you.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Beardon,

Would you take it a step further and solely determine the need to restore or renovate by the original architect of record ?

If not, wouldn't the course be perpetually subject to alterations ?

[RJ_Daley]

I wonder if the problem with deciding to restore or remodel is that most serious candidates to be restored, have historical and design quailities from a previous era that are so far removed in time that no one can figure what was original.  How many courses exist that haven't already been tampered with so much that no one really knows what work is being restored?  Anotherwords, renovations and improvements by various architects and even just local maintenace crews under a super's guidance may have tampered so much with original designs, that hardly anyone can tell what was original, what was tampered with (or needed to be improved) and at what point in the course's history those things happened.  Sure, they get lucky and find decent old photos from bygone era.  But, haven't most of the really significant old courses of serious design preservation qualities pretty much already been identified and worked on by the last 20 years or so of so-called restoration or remodel experts?  What's left?

[Bob_Huntley]

Jim,

Go to Ran Morissette's recent review of the MPCC Dunes Course; a superlative report it is, in my opinion.

I think you will be able to see that a renovation here was by far the best solution to the problem of drainage and the ravages made to old courses by the use of modern equipment.

Bob  

[Patrick_Mucci]

I wonder if the problem with deciding to restore or remodel is that most serious candidates to be restored, have historical and design quailities from a previous era that are so far removed in time that no one can figure what was original.

RJ,

I think that's true in many cases.
Many clubs have lost their archives due to fire, renovation or simple house cleaning.   When early aerial and ground leve photos can be obtained, the process becomes easier[/color]


How many courses exist that haven't already been tampered with so much that no one really knows what work is being restored?  

Probably quite a few.
That's where research and aerial photos can be of great help.
But, where they can't be obtained, familiarity with the style of the original architects work can be of help.[/color]

Anotherwords, renovations and improvements by various architects and even just local maintenace crews under a super's guidance may have tampered so much with original designs, that hardly anyone can tell what was original, what was tampered with (or needed to be improved) and at what point in the course's history those things happened.  Sure, they get lucky and find decent old photos from bygone era.  But, haven't most of the really significant old courses of serious design preservation qualities pretty much already been identified and worked on by the last 20 years or so of so-called restoration or remodel experts?  What's left?


Usually the routing and the bones of each hole.
From that it's sometimes possible to work backwards.
Other times, being in contact with the former superintendents can be a valueable aid.

It's certainly not an easy project, but, with due diligence, a good deal of valueable information can be obtained.   Information that will guide those in charge toward a more accurate restoration.

Clubs like Aronomink and Seminole were fortunate enough to have Donald Ross's detailed field drawings and notes, so, absent ground level and aerial photos on opening day, they had sufficient documentation to embark upon a project that mirrored what Ross had put on paper.[/color]

[Adam Sherer]

Ultimately, the phrasing (of work done) depends on who is really driving the work and what they really want to be done.

For instance, many on this site would argue that the work at Augusta would be a renovation, not a restoration, because of the club's (and Fazio's) apparent desire to alter the course for the sake of toughening next years tournament and not for original design intent.

In the case of a course such as Yale, the recent work seems to be driven by the desire to "restore" the architectural integrity of Raynor/MacDonald.

Examples aside, to elaborate on the opening thought:

A green committee may have the itch to "do something" to their course that would not accentuate the original design intent but would accomodate modern play (ie cartpaths, bunker removal, green regrading, etc.) If they are dead-set on doing the work no architect can convince them otherwise. This work would be what, renovation?

A superintendent wants to regrade the surrounds of a green to eliminate the build-up of decades of topdressing. Because of 80 years of topdressing, the slopes have become scalped and burnt out. The super enlists a contractor to soften the slopes so that he can mow the surrounds at fairway height (its a Ross course). This work would be what, restoration?



Edit:
Does the historic era or relevance of the course matter in determining the phrasing of work being done?

Atlantic City is an old course, what was that work?

Or, does the driving force (persons) behind the work determine it? Can an old course be "renovated" because there isn't the desire to "restore"?

[RJ_Daley]

Maybe the magazine rating game ought to come up with another list and call it the top 50-100 in need of true restoration.  The primary criteria would be a set of circumstances and pedigrees that define the course as being truly in need of restoration rather than renovation.  

A whole new category of raters, specifically a bunch of troglodites like GCA.com regulars would be uniquely qualified to be on that panel.  Rather than low handicap to scratch playing abilities, they would have to demonstrate a keen knowledge of golf course architecture history, and understanding of basic construction and design techniques that relate to past era golf values.  So, Brad Kleins and Ron Whitten's of the world; how about lists of courses that are at least 60 years old and their top 50 "most in need of restoration" and the top 50 "restorations done since 1990" lists?  Give us something new to chew on!  

[Jeff_Brauer]

It depends on whether respect for tradition or need for revenue is driving the boat.

If the club values the tradition, restore.

If the club/course needs revenue boosts, you need to improve whatever needs improving, whether design or maintenance conditions.

After all, they don't advertise "same old Tide".  They advertise "new and improved Tide."  Why?  Because it sells!