I know we've discussed in great detail the many "architects" of restoration, and reconstruction.
I'm curious if anyone believes that there is a construction company that stands out above the usual suspects in regards to the quality of their work.
I'm finding out that the crew or associate may be more important that the actual architect.
Thanks in advance for the info.

It is funny this is mentioned here.  I saw an instance recently where several "restoration specialists" were interviewed and all said you had to use this particular contractor in this area.  I don't think a golf architect would make such a statement.  I think if a club is using a restoration specialist or historian then it may be that they need a specific company to obtained the desired results  and in most cases at a higher price.

WAE:  You are on the right track.  If you are restoring a course then it's not the design that is in question, it's the execution of the construction that will make or break the deal.

However, how many contractors have you heard of who rest their laurels on the accuracy of their work, instead of their speed and their price?  How many contractors have actually sent their shapers around to see other courses built by the architect whose work they are restoring?

Sully:

That story has got to win an award. I hope it was Mrs Roden because I know Linc doesn't live far from there. And seeing as the fairway on #1 "C" nine is pretty canting left to right maybe they should've just used that lady's yard as the hole's center line anyway.

Yesterday Linc told me the entire saga of how the "C" nine came back into being starting with his efforts as far back as maybe the 1960s. He also told me the story of how he came to be the green chairman around 1981 after the course lost all its grass. The course was so over-irrigated I guess one hot summer day the grass just boiled. He said in three days the fairways were black. Back then he said the course was so over-irrigated and wet all the time they referred to driving down the middle of the fairways in a cart as "driving through the marsh".

He also said that I was wrong in saying that HVGC uses only 8 million gallons a year on 27 holes. Linc said it should be only half that if they'd do it the right way---eg the way he recommended. He said if anyone thinks HVGC is firm and fast now it should be at least twice as firm and fast. And he said it's way too green---that it ought to be much more of that beautiful brown.

Linc doesn't even call his ideal firm and fast---he just calls it "hard". When I asked how "hard" I think he said, imagine concrete!  

The man is definitely ground-breaking classic.

I recall the story of a prominent course that went through some “restoration” in the Chicago area.  After finishing my round I had the pleasure of having dinner with the architect in charge of the work.  I asked him why the bunkering style began to change on the 8th hole.  He commented back, “Unfortunately the contractor brought in a new crew who had just finished up working on a Nicklaus course and they kept doing Nicklaus.  There wasn’t much I could do”.  

Does the architect relinquish control of the project to the construction crew??  I'd have thought that the style of bunkering would be defined and at least  beginning construction supervised by the architect.

Is this a general practice or only an isolated case, I wonder???

Mark:  you misquoted me slightly above.  It's the execution of the construction [not the crew] which will make or break the deal.

The architect always has control of the job, in that he can refuse to approve a bunker as complete and make the contractor do it over again if it doesn't look right.  However, that doesn't happen very often in the real world.  If we were working with a contractor who couldn't get what we wanted, after a few bunkers, the choices are either to adapt what we want to something they can do, or fire them and start over with a new contractor, which NO club is going to want to do.

That's why architects provide the list of bidders for jobs, and why we hate it when a club wants to put someone else on the list ... because if they can't do the work the way we want it done, we know we're likely to have to adapt to their abilities, instead of the other way around.

Mark:  The difference between the two quotes (which is not that subtle) is that BOTH the architect and the construction crew are responsible for the execution of the construction.  We don't just let the crew go and get whatever we get.

No, Coore and Crenshaw would not be happy bidding out their shaping work ... they've spent a ton of time cultivating good people who understand what they are doing, as I have.  It isn't the owner who would have to be patient over the extra time it took, it would be the architect.

David,
I wish it were always that easy.  Unfortunately it is not.
Mark

It all boils down to PEOPLE, which I believe has been well stated here.

There are some builders who profess to specialize in restoration. But again, the individual shapers are key.

Rarely is there a 100% pure renovation. Nearly all "renovation" work involves new elements (tees, etc.), adjustments (shifts and change), mitigation (overcoming tree maturity, removal of trees, etc.) and re-building of features — perhaps lost to time, wear or neglect.

For these reasons, the golf architect is many times more essential to the process. He or she will orchestrate the vision. I have seen nearly clueless grounds crews rebuild a bunker and "get it right" when guided by an capable golf course architect. Many, if not all, of this crew had never seen a bunker built nor had ever considered what goes into the building of a sand hazard.

Now this discussion is getting into those subtleties that are very important especially in restoration/renovation work.

I do not know now often you have had to deal with this but while in new construction I do not mind bidding the work out with a controlled bid list, restoration and renovation is often much more suited to selection and negotiation with a contractor.  Unfortunately, a lot of clubs have that by-law about needing to bid everything over X amount - like municipalities.  That can make things interesting if not anoying.  We have had to get pretty creative to deal with that as I am sure you all have.

As the architect it is our job to know how to best execute the work as Tom stresses and make sure that team is put together.  Part of that is knowing the appropriate contractor. Who is best suited for the particular project.  I.E. does size matter on this project?  do they use the type of equipment best suited for the type of work? Who in their firm is available talent wise?.  While all keys in new construction, they can be more important or specifically needed in RR work.

I really enjoy RR work.  Remember it can be a lot more work for the architect then you think.

To do a proper restoration is takes people who CARE about restoration itself; architect, shaper and contarctor alike.

I think all of you vastly underestimate the difficulty of turning a completely lost bunker back to what is found in old photos. If you don't think so, try it; and I'm not talking about bunker lines, I'm talking about recreating shapes that are completely missing.

A great construction company makes the work go faster, achieve more accuracy, and requires less direction from the architect. If you have done work with them previously, then you don't have to teach what you want. That's why Doak, C&C and others carry there own shapers.

There's not much to disagree with here.
Everyone has preached a concerned, experienced shaper and construction team. My understanding is that many architects use more than one company for work.
Are there companies to avoid? Are there crews that produce consistently excellent work?
Does anyone have any specific recommendations?

Forrest...that was the only chuckle I can remember today, "not my favorite pastime" etc...thamks/