Renovation of an architect's original work while living?

[Jeff Schley]

We have many treasures that have endured over time around the world, with the classic courses ascending to their well deserved heights.  There was a downturn in the amount of courses around the 50's/60's  (RTJ/Dye came on) til probably the mid 70's (Nicklaus/Palmer/Fazio), and of course the boom in the 80/90's.  As there are very few new courses being built today, renovations are becoming more prevalent and will be for the foreseeable future probably.

I don't know of specific instances recently (perhaps some of you do), but perhaps it has happened in the recent past and could certainly happen in the future,  if an architect who is alive and still working has their original design renovated by a different architect how would this be perceived?

1. The original architect was offered the job and turned it down for some reason
2. The renovation is very small in scope and the original architect work isn't altered materially
3. The budget isn't big enough
4. The club didn't like the original architect's course and wanted to start fresh
5. The original design is bad from the beginning for that piece of land
6. The decision is wrong to not allow the original architect the work
7. Who the hell cares, there are many reasons good and bad!

[Tom_Doak]

It happened fairly often in the old days.  Walter Travis built a course for Milwaukee Country Club, only to have Hugh Alison come along and totally change it within 5-10 years.


It's rarer nowadays, because so much of marketing is predicated on the architect's name,  so when it does happen today, it's bound to be more catty.  The most visible instance was when Tom Fazio was hired to redesign one of Greg Norman's courses in Arizona before it even opened.  But I know of a couple other instances like your number (1) or (2) where the original designer was asked to change something, refused, and another architect was brought in to make the change.


And, of course, there are tons and tons of courses where some architect has done a remodeling, only to have someone come in 5-10 years later and do another.  It's funny when both of them are labeled "restorations".


In general, I think clients owe it to an architect to talk to him first, before bringing on someone else to make changes.  I have made a couple of changes to my own courses that I didn't feel were necessary, but decided it would be better to do them myself than to have someone else in there messing with them.

[Steve Lang]

   TD,


I'd like to see you do a restoration at a certain hops farm on M-72 in Acme... would you change much today?


s

[Scott Warren]

Ross Watson hasn’t had a great few years. Between 10 & 15 years ago he did redesigns at Royal Sydney, Bonnie Doon & Concord.


OCCM is about to complete a total rebuild of Bonnie Doon, there’s a Doak redesign of Concord underway & Hanse has been engaged to redesign Royal Sydney if the members ever get around to approving it.


Peter Thomson’s course at The National Golf Club - The Ocean - is about to be ploughed under less than 20 years after it opened, for a Doak rebuild.

[Jay Mickle]

Pinehurst #4. Jones, Jones, Fazio, Hanse

[Adam Lawrence]

Another Peter Thomson project, the Duke's course in St Andrews (which would have been done in conjunction with Mike Wolveridge and Ross Perrett I guess) was considerably redone by Tim Liddy about ten years ago. There was a certain amount of controversy over the extent of the changes, but nobody seems to doubt that Tim significantly improved the golf course.

[Tom_Doak]

Ross Watson hasn’t had a great few years. Between 10 & 15 years ago he did redesigns at Royal Sydney, Bonnie Doon & Concord.


OCCM is about to complete a total rebuild of Bonnie Doon, there’s a Doak redesign of Concord underway & Hanse has been engaged to redesign Royal Sydney if the members ever get around to approving it.


Peter Thomson’s course at The National Golf Club - The Ocean - is about to be ploughed under less than 20 years after it opened, for a Doak rebuild.

True, it's amazing how easily I put the latter out of mind.


All the work at Concord is finished as of early April.  I don't know if the front nine are open yet or whether they are waiting for a bit more growth in the spring.  They opened some of the holes on the back nine only six weeks after they were grassed, in order to keep nine holes open while they shut down the other side.

[Cliff Hamm]

Gil Hanse did a total renovation of TPC Boston. Arnold Palmer was the original architect and wanted his name removed.

[David_Madison]

Pine Needles - Kyle Franz totally redid the bunkering and lots more on PN that had been extensively renovated by John Fought some time ago

[Jeff_Brauer]

You guys focus on the big names, but for the rest of the architects, it sometimes feels like open season.


I have only had a few of those, and they were minor, but few seem to care, really.  And, in some cases, like in bunker reduction programs, not only might the original architect refuse, but sometimes, owners just presume they would, or be extremely reluctant to change the design in the manner the owner "knows" is should.  (i.e., reduce sand bunkers by 50% or so)


Also in current times, you find the owners, management companies and sometimes even contractors against you.  I was contracted to draw a plan to redesign a too slopey green (I agreed it got away from me) They paid for the plan, but the management company is charging a construction management fee, so the fee for the architect to visit and approve final shaping was eliminated as "duplicitous" .  I have a nearby project so I guess I will get to see it unpaid.  And, they won't be embarrassed because they used my plan (except where the superintendent felt he should change it)


You can't be in the gca business and get your feelings hurt too easily, that is for sure.

[Peter Pallotta]

I was thinking: a significant shift occurred 20 years ago when a developer realized that the best land for golf was also the least expensive land for golf (because it was so far away from major urban areas). I suppose that, similarly, these 're-builds' have an purely economic aspect too, ie the golf course that will be planned and built and open and up & running the soonest (and least expensively) will be the golf course that was already there in the first place.

[Greg Gilson]

There was a quite lengthy discussion here several years ago about Medallist & Norman/Dye asking for their names to be removed after "unauthorised" changes were made by a different firm. I may have those details slightly wrong? The discussion here devolved to coffee shop gossip about Norman & Palm Beach society & his lack of popularity because of his "Evert Period". I lost interest when it got down to that but I was very interested to understand how archies felt about this topic and where "copyright" type issues start coming into play.

[Niall C]

This is perhaps a bit of a tangent considering the main thrust of the thread but Adam mentioning the Dukes Course got me thinking of the original course and the perhaps undiplomatic comments made by Tim Liddy at the time of his restoration and Peter Thomsons perhaps understandable response.

IIRC the main comment that caused offence was Tim Liddy’s comment regarding the lack of drainage. Given the nature of the land I always thought that was overly harsh. Whether the course has been greatly improved it's hard for me to say as although I played the Thomson version 20 plus times courtesy of a corporate deal, I've only walked the Liddy version in part. It seemed to me that a lot of the holes were simply a change from the “links” to the ”heathland” look. I don’t think the change in look improved it any.     

Where the course has benefitted is the change in routing with the new holes at the bottom of the site, all on land that wasn’t available to Thomson (or so I believe). To say Thomson did a poorer job is IMO a harsh judgement to make. What happened was they took the opportunity to improve the course with the routing when the chance arose.

Niall

[Niall C]

I have only had a few of those, and they were minor, but few seem to care, really.  And, in some cases, like in bunker reduction programs, not only might the original architect refuse, but sometimes, owners just presume they would, or be extremely reluctant to change the design in the manner the owner "knows" is should.  (i.e., reduce sand bunkers by 50% or so)

Jeff

Are you, or other gca's, ever proactive in approaching the client/club and suggesting a "review" ?

Niall

[Tom_Doak]

Are you, or other gca's, ever proactive in approaching the client/club and suggesting a "review" ?

Niall:


For myself, it just feels weird to me that an architect would go back to a course he'd built to suggest changes [and presumably get paid to make those changes].  Sure, he could have some things he thinks he should have done differently, but doesn't it come across like he is looking for something to do?


At least that's how it sounded to me when I heard one signature architect had signed up to totally renovate a course he had totally renovated 25 years ago.

[Thomas Dai]

Going back after a certain period doesn’t seem inappropriate imo given the way mowing lines change over time, bunker shapes alter, fringes get wider/narrower, bunker creep occurs, trees and roots grow, streams change course etc etc etc etc etc.
Some might consider that the senior maintenance man should maybe not let such things occur but this would I suggest be wrong given how staff move on and sometimes are ‘leant on’ or instructed by committees/owners to alter things which change the original architectural intent of the course.
Atb

[Niall C]

Tom

I wasn't thinking of a total re-do, I was more thinking of tweaks here and there on the basis of perhaps changes in technology over a period, and even as a tacit recognition that what was done previously was a "collaborative effort" ie the architect might have undertaken certain work such as the placing of a bunker on the specific instruction of the client, in which case it might be appropriate for the gca to revisit and up date.

Niall

[Jeff_Brauer]

I have only had a few of those, and they were minor, but few seem to care, really.  And, in some cases, like in bunker reduction programs, not only might the original architect refuse, but sometimes, owners just presume they would, or be extremely reluctant to change the design in the manner the owner "knows" is should.  (i.e., reduce sand bunkers by 50% or so)

Jeff

Are you, or other gca's, ever proactive in approaching the client/club and suggesting a "review" ?

Niall

Niall,



I periodically stay in touch with many clients and have proactively contacted new owners of my designs to see if I can assist. 

Times change, and so do design needs, especially for those 90's courses designed as if good times will roll forever.

Is it awkward?  Yes, sometimes admitting the "over done" design is the most embarrassing part.


If they mention they are considering anything, like Better Billy Bunker, I use the opportunity to suggest we review their bunkering for two main considerations - reduction in size/number to reduce liner construction cost and changing shape, often to move them back to 6-8 feet from the green edges, now shrunken in several feet over the years as is typical.  That isn't totally hypocritical - over the years I have generally reduced the size and number of sand bunkers because of liner cost, but also, finding the scale of some 1990's era was simply too large in many cases.  The green ought to be the main visual target, not the surrounding sand bunkers, which was not the prevailing theory at all times (bunkers sell real estate, for example, which is now not a factor)


Then, I mention my interest in correcting their tee organization by possibly adding tees at front and back to as many holes as possible.  Sometimes, mowing lines, turf reductions, improved ranges come into play. It is rare to get a full long term master plan out of it, the work usually ends up being a site visit or two, and I always try to keep their costs as low as possible as former clients. 


While it can feel weird and you usually tread lightly, there is the old business axiom that its easier to sell an old client more services than find a new one.

[Ian Andrew]

Renovation of an architect's original work while living?


I think that comes down to:


1.  the relationship or lack of a relationship with the original architect
2.  was it an original design or a full renovation of a previous course
3.  as a business, do you have options, do you need the work


I have had an opportunity and passed, but that has been a very rare instance in my career.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom

I wasn't thinking of a total re-do, I was more thinking of tweaks here and there on the basis of perhaps changes in technology over a period, and even as a tacit recognition that what was done previously was a "collaborative effort" ie the architect might have undertaken certain work such as the placing of a bunker on the specific instruction of the client, in which case it might be appropriate for the gca to revisit and up date.

Fair enough.  I've actually been trying to find time to get back to some of our courses to give them a tune-up ... mostly to fix mowing lines that have changed, and whack back the trees that have encroached over the last 10-15 years.  I was at Stone Eagle last year and some of the greens there have shrunk as much as ten feet on one side.  But their #1 interest was in adding a few back tees.

[Mike_Young]

For the average regional architect the scene is different than for a signature where marketing is critical.  I've seen the same signature be allowed o change the greens three times on a course where if he were just a regional, he would have been fired and another brought in. 
The same goes for supts and contractors and management companies as JB sort of mentions. 
1-A management company comes in brings their supt and they do the entire deal listening to the supt and their "contractor of choice" tell them they can do it all.  Obviously if the average owner is using a management company there is some type of problem to begin with so he really doesn't care. 

2- it is fairly common today for contractors to tell clubs and supts they can do it all and dont need the archie.  I'vr seen spts use a different green grass because they know it will get them magazine time. 

3- the thing I see most is the supt situation.  Most supts may get one or two chances in a career for a reno or redo so it's a big deal.  They are convinced they can do everything out there and they really don't want you around. 

As JB says again, it takes thick skin.  On a regional level supts and contractors will step on your weiner where as if you were a signature they would wet their pants to eat lunch with you in the club grill...you guys really don't understand what a regional guys goes thru...there is no respect for golf architects...the average club member knows more about design than you do once his handicap falls below 10.  And if a top tour player happens thru town and stops to play the local product, then his off the cuff comments can do more damage to a design than you imagine. 

Remember the guy who the decision maker sees the most will have the most influence on rework and most of the time that is the supt.  As I tell owners, " you don't know what a good supt is until you have had one"

[Tom_Doak]

As JB says again, it takes thick skin.  On a regional level supts and contractors will step on your weiner where as if you were a signature they would wet their pants to eat lunch with you in the club grill...you guys really don't understand what a regional guys goes thru...there is no respect for golf architects...the average club member knows more about design than you do once his handicap falls below 10.  And if a top tour player happens thru town and stops to play the local product, then his off the cuff comments can do more damage to a design than you imagine. 

The part about the average club member knowing more about design if he's a low handicapper is true for me, too.  Only the Tour players turned architects are immune to that part of it.  And you're right about the over-emphasis on their off the cuff comments, too.


But I'm now even less likely to want to have lunch with everyone in the club grill   

[Jeff Schley]

the average club member knows more about design than you do once his handicap falls below 10.   

You mean this isn't true???