Does the architect have any ethical responsibility to preserve a historically important course, or is it just a personal choice. We know that many of the golden-age architects rebuilt or renovated a lot of the original courses with little regard to theri predacessors work. Some made major changes to architect we would now clas as signifigant.

The ASGCA has nothing that talks about golf architectural history an ethics.


Some of us have seen the ASGCA code of ethics:

Ethical, responsible, professional behavior not from edict, but from a positive, inward force of the individual. The most effective influence toward a high ethical standard is positive, consistent, ethical actions in the practice of their profession by the members of the Society. The following articles express in general terms the professional conduct expedted of golf course architects:

I. The golf course architect shall exert every effort toward the preservation and protection of our natural resources and toward understanding the interaction of man's economic and social systems with those resources.

II. The golf course architect has a responsibility to reconcile and harmonize the requirements of the game of golf with man's needs, the natural systems and the natural environment.

III. The golf course architect furthers the welfare and advancement of his/her profession by constantly striving to provide the highest level of professional services.

IV. The golf course architect shall serve his/her client or employer with integrity, understanding, knowledge and creative ability and shall respond morally and ethically to social, political, economic and technological influences.

V. The golf course architect shall avoid unprofessional conduct and shall conform to the Guidelines for Professional Conduct of the American Society of Golf Course Architects.



So the ASGCA has no mention of preservation of historically signifigant courses. Granted this is hard to define, and they must be given some latitude on this, but still the preservation of important work is not listed.

Should they have something like:
The golf course architect shall exert every effort toward historical preservation of signifigant works of golf course architecture, for the betterment of the golf.


As an example: What if Ian Andrew (the "Butcher of Scarborough") renovated Garden City (he said he was a Travis expert ) bringing it up to 7,500 yards. In the process he changed a series of holes (18 or so) to find length, and prepare it for a hopeful bid to host the "Great Viagara Classic"


This course is one of the more important pieces of history in golf architecture. Would this, or more importantly should this be an ethical violation in the ASGCA?. At what point do we, as architects, have a responsibility to the history of the game? Again, I say that the line is very hand to place, and that could be the reason it doesn't exist.

There is no question that even the leading restoration people make occasional mistakes. I have made a few too. As Tom said in another post batting 1.000 is impossible. It can't be simply for removing or adding a bunker BUT is there a line that is missing and should be drawn?

(end of rant)

Mike,

Your point is taken, and I was looking for this reponse. I'm not sure if I have a valid point or I'm just too sensitive to change at certain courses. I obviously have a heavy history bias in my beliefs, but I am willing to conceed that I may be wrong on this though. Possibly I'm not, I honestly don't know, I simply posted how I fely tonight.

I hope you got my "Travis expert" comment as tongue firmly planted in cheek.

Ian,
I understood you Travis comment.
To use another quote and I don't know the author "To live a creative life, we must lose our fear of being wrong."
Many on this site will think I'm crazy to think these dead guys can be improved.....I just think you got to keep moving and yep...some stuff will get screwed up....and then it will be fixed to be srewed up again in the future but that is how evolution works...I think.

Ian,
I think there is a lot that shouldn't change.  But I think most are in the form of strategies and philosophies not in site specific dead architect features.  Ex: if modern cart traffic demands ingress and egress from the side of a green that was always approached form the front.  And this particular green had a continuous bunker on on each side.  Would it not be acceptable to keep the same strategy and create ingress and egress by splitting a bunker etc??? I say ok but others would x it.  Personally, I dislike cart paths but.....
IMHO we just complicate dead guys and micro study them too much....

Ian
I wouldn't call an architect who redesigns or remodels a significant design unethical...perhaps unaware or historically insensative. I personally believe golf architects, as a group, have a responsability to preserve the most significant works of their profession...if they have no interest in preserving their own art, then there really is no hope.

They could add a clause to their code of ethics, as you suggested. IMO they should go a step further and actually identify a relatively small number of important designs that should be preserved and protected (within reason).

Why shouldn't they? If I were a member of a club or resort owner, and the ASCGA proclaimed that my golf course was an historically important design...I would be both proud and thrilled. The positive ramifications far out weigh any negative consequences.

In fact I would involve the ASGCA sister organizations in Europe, Australia and Japan. I think identification of important designs should be done on a worldwide basis.

I talked to members at Engineers and Hollywood, they really were surprised when explained to them what a historically significant design their golf course was. I'm certain those in charge of Manoir Richelieu had no clue either, hell a savvy GCAer like RJ has no clue about MR, why would some resort executive know?

On a related note:
There appears to be a general consensous that golf technology is out of hand--identifying, preserving and protecting important works of architecture, could add pressure and indirectly help rein in equipment.

Tom MacWood,

While your idea is sound it misses an important segment of the golf world.  In house work.

I would venture to say that more alterations to golf courses have been done in house, without consulting an outside, independent architect, then alterations done with a consulting archictect.

So, to amend you suggestion, I think you have to include and incorporate the Green Superintendent's Associations as well.

Seems to me the ethical consideration of the membership of an organization like the ASCGA is to serve clients honestly and professionally. Would that include advice to preserve historically significant golf courses? Sure, why not, but if the ASGCA is going to put that into their by-laws, I'd like to see how. What kind of criteria are they going to come up with to recommend that on an architect by archtitect basis? Those who've asked what if the client doesn't want to do that have a good question there. Does that mean the ASGCA has some ethical responsiblity to great architecture to walk away? That would definitely be a stretch! More like dreaming actually.

There's no question at all that organizations like the ASGCA, the national and regional superintendents association, the USGA, and architect societies and such can have some impact but the most effective way of getting this kind of thing done is on a grass roots level and probably fairly regionally. Golf courses notice what's going on in their regions better than anything else. The reasons for that are obvious and the only way to get any club's attention and interest them in restoration or preservation is to get right into the clubs and the people who are directly responsible for how they're run and maintained and convince and persuade them to look at restoring or preserving their course. It doesn't just end there either. Somebody has to stick with it and take the entire process through planning, persuading the membership to do it and the process of executing it well and maintaining it properly into the future. The truth of all this is evidenced by some clubs who tried this type of thing without understanding it all and became disappointed how things turned out. There's no secret formula here that's just waiting to be discovered. It takes collaboration, the generating of pride and respect for what the course is and a well planned and executed architectural process generally followed by maintenance practices that may be quite different than in the decades previously. All this stuff is simply a series of fairly proven processes at this point and it just takes a lot of dedication, time and hard work on the part of the participants. There's no other way, unfortunately.

If there is show me a course that's done it some other way.

Why do I have the sickening feeling that if the ASGCA were to produce a list of courses that shouldn't be touched, it would focus on:

a)  their own works, and
b)  courses that non-ASGCA members are working on?

[Jeff:  Just kidding, unless it happens.]

I DO think the society should do more to consider preserving certain courses ... even if it were just for the architects to nominate one or two of their own designs that should not be touched by future generations.  Wouldn't it be interesting to know which courses the great masters would have picked?

Questions for the architects:

I'd imagine that pure "restoration" is the easiest type of project, because it involves less creativity.  Convincing the members and research being the most improtant aspects.

Whereas a successful remodelling of a course is the much harder.  When I write remodel, I'm thinking of substantial changes.  I suppose the test of time is the only way to tell if a remodel job was successful.

I disagree that the best architects are working today and that there were more bad courses in the old days.  That's certainly not the case in GBI...even the old courses on dull land are generally far better than the new.

The old architects are always going to be revered more because they were the pioneers.  And what might seem obvious now, wasn't obvious in 1910!

Robert Thompson: "What we are really saying is that some architects bill themselves as "dead architect experts," when they really have little experience in the area."

There is plenty of sharp criticisms regarding Rees, Fazio, etc., I have done my part.  Now Mike and Robert, of whom are you speaking?

Paul Turner:

The aspect of research and membership interaction on restoration projects may be more difficult than renovation or new design.  Fortunately in my new design work I have largely been left to myself during the design and constrcution phases, renovation work there is much more interaction with members but it has been pleasurable, restoration, that could be more intense and and if you really are convinced that the original design is of the highest order than the interaction with a trigger happy membership could make the design process much more intense as compared to new or renovation.  I appreciate you comments regarding the old architects as compared to the new architects like myself who you think suck  , I have been heavy into listening to my old Zepplin CD's and in doing so have concluded there has been no better rock and roll produced since then.  I am especially pleased with the meld between the songs on Led Zepplin 1, I mean the transition from Black Forest to Communication Breakdown is a piece of art!

Kelly

Why are you yanks so obsessed with Led Zep  Rip off band who never credited their sources .  We got over that dinosaur rock ages ago!

They originally didn't credit anyone and I believe they were taken to court by Dixon.  

"Whole Lotta Love", their anthem, is a straight lift. I remember hearing the Muddy Waters version for the first time, and thinking bloody hell, Led Zep really are a bunch of wankers

"I'd imagine that pure "restoration" is the easiest type of project, because it involves less creativity.  Convincing the members and research being the most improtant aspects."

Paul, you are correct that research is a large part of a resotration project but I beg to differ that creativity is lacking.  It takes creativity to combine a large amount of information and put it together for the finished project, especially if what you are working on does not exist in the present.  The restoration of bunkers or the reconstruction of existing bunkers in new locations is an exacting process.  The research involved in creating the steps to get to construction involve photo research and archival searches, archeology, reading history on the various clubs, knowing that particular site (every course is not the same even though the name may be), knowing the era that the particular course was designed (each architect evolved), who was the construction foreman (such as Hatch vs. McGovern), knowing the demands of the current membership. We cannot also forget, if the restoration architect himself does not do the shaping, who is going to handle construction. Any old Joe on a dozer is not going to get the job done.  All of this before shovel hits dirt.  

Once in the field it is not a matter of just painting lines.  We have been told of architects who do not even lift an eye prior to approving a bunker then move on.  Detail must be paid to each slope, elevation, undulation and sand line.  Afterall the goal is to create something that looks like the original features and not just like any other course.  Working of a Flynn course like Philmont or Concord (more Ross-like than Flynn) is different than working on Philadelphia C.C. or Mannie's.  Working on teen's Ross is different than working on late 20's Ross.  Look at Tillie's work at Newport vs. San Fran. the list goes on.  It takes creativity to discern and not let one of the other courses creep into the course an architect may be working on.

The above is just for bunkers.  Things become even more difficult when rebuilding a green to match exsiting "classic" greens.  

Many people criticized as being or calling themselves "experts", of a dead architect, may in fact not be doing the self promotion, it may be others referring to them as such.  If an architect has an ability to differentiate styles and pull off the various looks it is a credit to his hard work and creativity and also the work of the contractor and shaper.  

One aspect of restoration that many do not think about, as stated by a contributing architect is "with restoration one must check his ego at the door".  Something that may cloud many architects from wanting to restore a course, they would prefer to "leave their mark"