In renovation, should authenticity carry as much weight as progress?

[mike_malone]

It’s not that Flynn wouldn’t change things. It’s that we don’t know what he would have done and what he did originally is sensational. Only a few courses can qualify to be the best example of the original for a great designer. If your course is that you should go for it.


Once you diverge it could be gone forever.


It’s interesting that you choose the Philly CC example since that was Flynn who came back to advise. The changes at Rolling Green that took place before the mid 30’s show no evidence of Flynn involvement and are suggested to be undone. They pale compared to the original.

[Mark_Fine]

Any architect that says that there is nothing they would change about a previous course they designed is fooling themselves (or is just plain arrogant). Anyone who has ever been involved with a design process knows there are often a infinite number of issues, dilemmas, road blocks, permits, budgets, weather, timing, owner or committee demands, environmental restrictions,... the list goes on and on.  Any or all can impact what ends up getting built. In addition architects continue to learn and refine their ideas as they progress in their profession. It makes total sense that they might want to tweak things that they did in the past.  The challenge is as Mike Malone said, how do we know what they would change?  The answer is we don’t but with careful and extensive study of an architect’s body of work as well as analysis of any writings and descriptions of his or her design philosophies that they left behind we can make educated guesses. What bothers me most is not so much when I see an old course that has been changed but when it looks nothing like what the original architect designed there to start with or for that matter anywhere else.  Take Flynn since he has been mentioned numerous times in this thread, I have seen almost every course that he designed that still exists today and quite a few of them have changed to the point where he would not recognize anything but maybe the routing.  I will not name names but some architects just do their own thing under the guise of improvement.  I saw one Flynn course where the architect thought the original Flynn bunkers were not artistic enough (a bit bland in their opinion) so he spiced them up!  Bunkers can always be fixed/restored but once the green surfaces are altered there is zero opportunity for restoration of the original.  I will say that in addition to architects and green committees and whoever else is coming in and making changes, modern maintenance and construction practices are some of the biggest reasons courses change.  So many things can be done now vs what that architects of the past could do. That in itself means there would be change.

[Tom_Doak]

Any architect that says that there is nothing they would change about a previous course they designed is fooling themselves (or is just plain arrogant). Anyone who has ever been involved with a design process knows there are often a infinite number of issues, dilemmas, road blocks, permits, budgets, weather, timing, owner or committee demands, environmental restrictions,... the list goes on and on.  Any or all can impact what ends up getting built. In addition architects continue to learn and refine their ideas as they progress in their profession. It makes total sense that they might want to tweak things that they did in the past.  The challenge is as Mike Malone said, how do we know what they would change?  The answer is we don’t but with careful and extensive study of an architect’s body of work as well as analysis of any writings and descriptions of his or her design philosophies that they left behind we can make educated guesses. What bothers me most is not so much when I see an old course that has been changed but when it looks nothing like what the original architect designed there to start with or for that matter anywhere else.  Take Flynn since he has been mentioned numerous times in this thread, I have seen almost every course that he designed that still exists today and quite a few of them have changed to the point where he would not recognize anything but maybe the routing.  I will not name names but some architects just do their own thing under the guise of improvement.  I saw one Flynn course where the architect thought the original Flynn bunkers were not artistic enough (a bit bland in their opinion) so he spiced them up!  Bunkers can always be fixed/restored but once the green surfaces are altered there is zero opportunity for restoration of the original.  I will say that in addition to architects and green committees and whoever else is coming in and making changes, modern maintenance and construction practices are some of the biggest reasons courses change.  So many things can be done now vs what that architects of the past could do. That in itself means there would be change.

The real arrogance is thinking you could improve on the work of a great architect.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Like it or not, it happens ALL the time.  It is part of the game.  You have done as many "restorations/renovations" as anyone.  What is your intent when you do a renovation and change someone else's design - to make it worse?    Maybe you should only work on new courses and your own designs and not touch anyone else's work 


Unfortunately golf courses are not static pieces of art.  Courses are evolving every single day because they are alive and require extensive maintenance to keep them not looking like an overgrown field.  Maintenance crews/practices alone can have a HUGE impact on how a golf course evolves (for better or for worse). 


I will add one further comment, if an architect of an original design is still living and practicing, I think it would be crazy to bring in someone else to change it/restore it/renovate it - call it what you want.  I was asked to help consult on an early Pete Dye design and I told the course no unless they contacted Pete first to see if he was ok with it which they did.  It is a little harder to contact architects no longer with us. 
Mark