[Adam_F_Collins]

Given the fear and loathing of many on this site toward the misguided alteration or modernization of classic courses, I wondered if Architect societies for classic architects operated as architectural consultants to clubs seeking advice. Is it generally considered one of the purposes of such societies?

Does, say - the Donald Ross Society recommend the services of a particular architect or selection of architects whom they consider to be particularly suited to doing faithful restorations or alterations which maintain the integrity of the original designs of Ross? There is a recent thread concerning Brad Klein's visit to Fox Chapel - is this type of meeting a common or increasingly common type of event?

I remember a post a little while ago about the creation of architectural archives. Do such archives (such as the Tufts Archive) function as a guide for renovations? Is it an intended function?

As people become more aware of the merits of classic architecture, I guess I'm wondering if these type of organizations are moving toward actively operating as consultants aimed at guiding the future directions of the classic courses.

How is it that Tom Fazio was chosen for the recent alterations to ANGC? Was the Alister MacKenzie Society consulted for advice? Does this society have the capacity to function in such a role?

[Adam_F_Collins]

Anyone?
Anyone?

C'mon, I know there are people here who can answer this...

[BCrosby]

They are not supposed to. . .

[Brad Klein]

They have no business doing so, those who run them are not qualified to do so, and in the case of the Donald Ross Society it's clearly a violation of its (our) charter to engage in any matters that provide favor or economic advantage to a particular architect.

[Adam_F_Collins]

I see. Thank you.

[ian]

OK I'll bite....

I have had a member of the Donald Ross Society solicite work from a club that we were working with. They were asked their opinion on a future change (something we encouraged) while they were up to visit the course.

There currently is a founding member of the Stanley Thompson Society finishing off the restoration work started at another club, because as a member of the society and the club, he felt he was "more qualified" to do the work himself. It took us 10 years to plan and sell the club on the full restoration approach, that we unfortunately never got to complete. We "lost" the job when we insisted on some origional bunkers remaining as they were designed, when the founder felt they should be removed or changed for "playability"


I have had a great experience with the Travis Society (a have been a member since it's founding); and I think that the Ross Society is excellent.

I will not serve on the Travis Society board because I think that would be unfair to other architects, and herein lies my problem with architect societies. If the members want to be architects, I welcome them, it's proabably good for golf; but in a position of influence, they have the opportunity to use their position for personal gain.

I expect a few angry people, or to be told I'm just bitter for losing work, but this explains to all the people why I won't join the Thompson Society despite working with 30 Thompson courses.

[Joe Hancock]

I wonder if the "Kiss" fan club has any input on how the band performs.

Joe

[Adam_F_Collins]

Thank you, Ian

Your experiences are very interesting.

I guess I'm wondering how the different societies exist WITHOUT getting directly involved in the futures of the existing clubs of their respective architects.

Golf courses are living things; constantly changing and therefore moving away from what the architect originally created. If they are to be maintained, the respective clubs have to have an awareness of the architects original plan and at least some insight in order to be able to make necessary modifications while maintaining the integrity of the original (if that's possible)

So it seems that the same people who would be interested enough in an architects work to become actively involved in a society might be tempted to get actively involved in what happens to the remaining works of that architect.

Let's face it - you love Thompson - you hate to see a club take it in the 'wrong' direction...

Certainly a difficult situation.

But I didn't ask the question with any direction in mind. I know nothing about societies or how they operate and didn't realize that they were not supposed to get involved in such things. I actually thought that for them to operate as consultants would be a logical function and a valuable service for them to perform.

[Adam_F_Collins]

I wonder if the "Kiss" fan club has any input on how the band performs.

Surprisingly, KISS is not dead yet.  

[Joe Hancock]

Surprisingly, KISS is not dead yet.  

Nor are many of the golf courses that were designed by Archie's that now have Societies.

[Adam_F_Collins]

Really? Wow.

I don't know squat about any of this. I guess I'm talking more about the ones for architects which are dead. (otherwise, they could just do their own consulting).

[Adam_F_Collins]

Okay, I got this from the mission page of the Donald Ross Society it's one of the society's goals:

"Assist in the restoration efforts of Donald Ross golf courses through a network of Allied Associations that include The American Society of Golf Course Architects, The Club Managers Association of America, The National Golf Foundation, The PGA TOUR, The PGA of America, and the United States Golf Association, among others;"

How does the society perform this function? That's the root of my question. How does a society actively work with living clubs to keep the work of a deceased architect alive? How do they plug in? Is it just being available as a source of information?

[JakaB]

They have no business doing so, those who run them are not qualified to do so, and in the case of the Donald Ross Society it's clearly a violation of its charter to engage in any matters that provide favor or economic advantage to a particular architect.

From the interview section of this site...Ran to Michael Fay..

17. If you were the sole decision maker at Scioto CC, what course of action,if any, would you pursue?

I would dust off the original plans, call Tom Doak and get to work.

[Brad Klein]

Ian, John,

individual members of the DRS or of any other society are free to do what they want, and to express their own views, but they should not be doing so as and in the name of that Society. It's a fine line, but an important one. The DRS does try to provide general information, and serve as a clearing house, but that's as far as its function should go as an official body.

[michael j fay]

OK, I'll bite...

The Donald Ross Society is more dedicated to the process. We do not recommend Architects, nor do we naysay on any Architects.

Over the years the important work of the Society has been to rally the membership behind the idea of restoration. We do not go in off the street and tell people what to do. Usually we are invited by a Member or group of Members that are interested in the Restoration of the golf course. We explain the necessary components to the membership, we assist in gathering historical data and photographs and we prepare the committee to answer the questions that the membership is sure to raise.

We attempt to portray to the membership the reasons why Ross courses are still relevant 55-100 years after they were built. We stress the importance of tree removal for opening up the avenues of play. At the same time we counsel the committee that tree removal is an issue that will cause controversy and get the committee to refrain from marking 400 trees for removal. If they are marked the chances of removal diminish, it is simpler to allow the people working on the course the option to take any tree that blocks a shot or couses agronomic problems.

Because we have been involved in over 100 restoration projects we are in the position to smooth the way for a restoration committee. Many of the questions from one restoration to the next are the same and we are prepared for them.

As for Architects we do not make any recommendation other than to have the Committee see restoration or other work done by the proposed Architect. We are open to Architects that have not done restoration work because we feel that the competition keeps everyone on their toes.

If we read a Master Plan that is not to our liking, we will say so. Some "Restoration" Architects miss the boat.

I once saw a presentation by an Architect who was restoring an old course. He thought that lowering a promontory green by ten feet was a restorative move. The green had never been raised. Oft-times the English language is a stumbling block.

 

[Adam_F_Collins]

Michael J Fay

Thank you for your post and description of the society's activities regarding the courses of Ross. It is very helpful to my understanding.

[JakaB]

Michael,

I commend you for choosing a not so famous Doak as your favorite architect in the year 2000 during your interview with Ran....has anything changed your opinion in the last four years....now would your main man be Pritchard or Spence......or were you just kidding us all along when Ran asked you such a loaded question.

I did see some humor in you recommending an architect who was not a member of the ASGCA for Scioto when they had just hosted that very group....funny stuff.

[T_MacWood]

Michael
When reviewing master plans, what are the mistakes that would elicit a 'miss the boat' grade.

[michael j fay]

John:

It was tongue in cheek to some extent. I've always liked Tom's work.

The ASGCA is an interesting group. I have a great deal of experience with groups. For 28 years I ran Group Insurance Administrators, Inc. in Connecticut. We insured professional groups lawyers, doctors, pharmicists, etc. I met a good number of officers and Board Members as well as a great number of the members.

I have always been amazed how some of the least talented members of the Profession ended up running the Organization.
It seemed to me that it was an attempt to raise their status by taking the top job. This was not true of all of them, but true too often. For this reason I have never since taken Professional Associations all that seriously.

The ASGCA is a good organization with some very sound goals but I do not feel  that it is necessary to be a member of the ASGCA to be a good Architect.

As for Prichard, Spence, Doak, etc. I do not have a favorite. I have to be neutral and will remain so. I am hoping that a new class of restoration specialists will arise.

[michael j fay]

PS.

I still favor Ross.

[Mike_Young]

Michael,
Restoration specialists.  I am sure new ones will always come forward.  But let's face it.  Ross only saw what, 60 of his courses more than once?
If 200 of the Ross designs were restored that would be the market and if the were done over 10 years that would be 20 per year at the most.  If 4 guys call themselves specialist and each do 5 restorations then they are out of business in 4 years.  
I know myself and many architects have studied the works of Ross and others constantly while being in the business .  I consider myself to know much of Ross's work.  But I would be afraid to promote myself as a Ross specialist because it could affect your other work.
A club of which I am a member came back from the Ross Meeting telling me that you could not place a machine on a Ross course when rebuilding bunkers.  And much more from Ross specialist.  I have five pictures of bunkers I use in presentations that were constructed by 4  Ross specialist and everyone is different. I have seen water run across the entire surface of a green and into a bunker designed by a Ross specialist. I have seen Ross redo's that look like Raynor did them.(I like them)
When a Ross specialist gives out of Ross courses does he become a Raynor expert?  Are there any Ross specialist that have never designed or built an 18 hole project?  

I am not debating you on this issue I am trying to see another side to the justification.

[BCrosby]

It seems to me that there are some inescapable cross currents at the heart of any architectural society (or any other historical society for that matter).

One function (and probably the original function) is to provide a forum for like-minded people to share their appreciation of  whomever may be the object of their interest. The notion is to get together and talk a little Ross with other Ross lovers, for example. They serve as fan clubs.

Over time such societies have had foisted on them (or they have willingly taken on) another, very different function. They have become sanctioning bodies. Their opinions matter. Rather like art experts that have the clout to value a painting by Monet. Similarly clubs will want to know the views of an architectural society before spending a couple of million on a restoration. In a similar vein architects, construction companies, agronomists, and shapers will naturally want the blessing of the society.

The second, "sanctioning" function is very different from the first, "fan club" function. It involves these societies in all sorts of projects and decisions. Sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly. Sometimes involving careers and lots of money.

These functions are contradictory in important respects. The two functions call for very different kinds of organizations. I'm not sure that is fully appreciated by golf architect societies these days. I suspect that some day it will have to be.

Bob

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()