Mike,

Thanks. I appreciate how open you are particularly when this is a site with a preservation bias. I also think any discussion needs representation from opposing views to be valuable.
While I may not agree, I respect your opinion.


Tom MacWood,

I appreciated your common sense answer about unaware and insensitive being more appropriate than unethical. Well put.


Jeff Brauer,

The bylaw committee beats the membership committee. I actually volonteered to "quietly" assist the history committee 10 years ago. That is where my heart lies.

I appreciate what you said about keeping the ethics broad as to not paint yourself into a corner that you never meant to be in.


Tom Paul,

Your right, the criteria required is a nightmare, and if I would have taken the five minutes to calm down before posting, I would likely have realized this and not posted the question.

I agree with your point about restoration coming from the ground level inside my clubs. Usually someone researching or just plain intrested gets the ball rolling. This is where I must commend the societies for making clubs aware. They have likely done more in that regard than any other source.


Kelly,

This was an ASGCA on ASGCA members idea. You and I feel the same way about work at an important club, I also think architects have to say no, even if the club throws them out. I have been on the receiving end at Canada's most historic course for resisting change. You have to do what you think is right.

The "Travis Expert" was a tongue in cheek comment about many people who use the term expert just as a marketing tool. I believe that Forse, Pritchard and many others are worthy of that moniker, but they don't need to use it like the others do. I regret that part of the post most - it was only trying to be funny.

Your correct with the personal choice comment, it is up to each of us to do the right thing.


Paul,

A renovation is the easiest project, its strictly getting your ideas from the plan to the ground. This is simply and generally fun.

A restoration is painfully difficult at times, when you are trying to recreate a feature from a photo or plan. Often you are forced to create and recreate something a few times to get it right. It is a test of patience. Jim's post was excellent in describing this work.


Willie,

Thank-you for your post. I am not a "purist" when it comes to restoration. I will usually not remove built up sand deposits at bunkers because in most cases evolution had added to the character of the green. I believe accumulation, erosion, and other natural forces (even man occasionally ) do sometimes add more charcter (and that should remain.

I think Merion (for example) is the most difficult set of architectural questions a restorer could ever face. There are so many possibilities to which to draw a conclusion.

Tom,

"I'm certain when you go to a club to do a restoration you probably look at the course first and form your own opinion of what will work the best in a restoration sense and then after that you go to the membership with it.

Sometimes you say to a club, " I can believe what I'm looking at. You realize you have an almost original ____ course and a lot of this can be restored. They get excited and the process begins.

Other times you are brought in because they have a course done by _____ and they would like to keep or return the architecture as much as possible (while improving the playing conditions or extending the course where possible.

At that point your experiences are obviously a run through the spectrum of being elated or deflated with how they (some in the membership) can help you get these things done or not!

Let's take Scranton, because this is typical and you know the course.
1. The plan was approved pretty much as a restoration, but with new tees for length (where it didn't remove the strategy of the original hole) - full support from the club at all meetings
2. The greens and surrounds were a complete green light - full support from all
3. All new tees were added, fairways widened (this was controversial to some), and grasses were grown back up.
-tees were fine, the fairways got slimmed slightly to save a few heads with spacing (you have to comprimise), but the grasses were controversial for many members - 4 areas removed immediately to avoid losing support.
4. Trial bunker done very accurately - membership grumbles about difficulty - board loses its nerve (for now) - we are currently stuck with the question of difficulty.

This is a typical run, and you know what, I don't know how this will turn out right now. We will re-gradd to try improve the playability of some of the long areas. We will likely try a couple of less controversial trial bunkers to ease the minds of the board to finally sell the board on a retorative bunker project.

I've seen so many restoration architects at this point. They come in with what they believe is best (and probably really is) but at that point they really do need help from someone in that membership to carry it through to completion.
You need either an influential member, a rock solid committed board, a great manager (this happens occasionally where they make the decision for the club), or the occasion where you are hired and given complete trust to let you do what is right. I have had 10 clubs now where I report to the club about what I am doing, present to the membership but that is about it. The Kawartha restoration this year has no imput other than they would like to see it.

Other wise it is a fight to limit the comprimise the whole way through.

That's basically all I mean by 'from the ground up'. It can't really happen all that well without a good architect obviously but even with a good architect it generally ain't going to happen either unless somehow it comes from the ground up within the membership of any golf club.

I think every real restoration has to have someone in the club who believes this is what is right, and the members of the club trust his or her judgement. They are usually the one who mid-stream has to say "don't worry about the individual thing that bothers you, when you see it all together, you will wonder why we let this disappear before."

That is a renovation. Actually, if you want to be "pure" about the work, it is all a renovation. Some being more sympathetic than others.

Your right it is an overused and well abused work in golf architecture circles. Myself include.

Tom MacWood,

How did Ross and others feel about existing golf courses that they altered ?

Did they view any of them in the category of "deserving preservation" ? or, were they all fair game, irrespective of their quality ?

TEPaul,

I'd be interested in Perry Maxwell's views on altering an established Donald Ross course called Gulph Mills.

What were his views ?

Paul,
Well spoken.

Firstly, the ASGCA does regognize restorations. And, I believe the membership as a whole takes great pride in seeing treasured courses preserved and evolved. The ASGCA has a history of holding meetings at treasured courses where members can not only see the work firsthand, but meet with members, superintendents and historians.

One must regognize that the ASGCA member is not just made up of principal architects (the "names"), but many associates and, as I call them, "project architects" who work for the principals. These members need access to courses and people they would not normally be able to attain.

But...to the question of whether there is some mandate to restore or preserve? I think this is up to the free enterprise system.

Mr. Wright was a great architect, but he had no motive nor interest in restoring anything. His life's work is rather devoid of such work because that was not his cup of tea. If a client wanted a great music hall, Wrigth would be the first to blow up the one which existed. This did not make Wright less suitable for membership in any world society of architects, it just made him different from architects who relished in taking something treasured and focusing on preservation.

Of course there are examples of golf worth preserving. However, much of what is worth preserving had to do with the longevity of the course and the many, many influences laid upon it; tournaments, changes, the work of superintendents, other architects, etc.  This does not take away from the vision and plans of the original arcchitect — for many courses these are well in place thanks to preservation.

But, there are a select few courses which are pristine in terms of being the near-identical work of the original architect.

Many times golf architects — and indeed enthusiasts, such as many here — believe and promote the absolute preservation of the "work" of _______________(name your chap), when in reality it is the ages of time and the continual process of growth, death and the forces of man and nature which define a golf course.

I am not a Wright historian, having only casually studied his life and some of his local work. Your views on how he felt about significant works would be of better weight than mine. I agree, preservation of his work is a terrific goal. But, while he was a visionary — like many golf architects — his canvas and its elements were much more permanent than the living, breathing canvas and elements afforded to those in our field. This is the difference we fail, many times, to realize.

"I am not a Wright historian, having only casually studied his life and some of his local work. Your views on how he felt about significant works would be of better weight than mine. I agree, preservation of his work is a terrific goal. But, while he was a visionary — like many golf architects — his canvas and its elements were much more permanent than the living, breathing canvas and elements afforded to those in our field. This is the difference we fail, many times, to realize."

Forrest:

I don't think I fail to realize that difference at all, although it sure seems to me some such as Tom MacWood seem to fail to realize the differences. At least he seems to refuse to recognize them as he constantly seems to want to rather strictly analogize building architecture and it elements with golf course architecture and its elements.

I realize his primary purpose may be preservation or restoration (in a preservationist sense) of quality golf architecture but so is mine. It's just that to do that properly, and for the very reasons you give, one really does need to understand what the differences are between the art forms if for nothing more than how to best go about the practicalities of good restoration or preservation of golf architecture.

I may have fostered the idea of comparing golf architecture to building architecture by bringing up Wright — one thing is for certain: Wright was a man of vision, and so, too, are many of us who practice golf course design. My purpose was to compare the human spirit relative to preserving -vs- creating new...and all in between.

While there are "Wrights" out there practicing golf architecture today, and in the past, the canvas they are working on is much apart from Mr. Wright's.

I have often wondered what Wright would have created in terms of a golf course. I am certain it would have been closer to Desmond Muirhead than many preservation or retro-oriented philosophies.

Forrest
Would you say the ASGCA has done an effective job of promoting historic preservation...for whatever reason I haven't heard or read anything about these efforts. Has the ASGCA addressed cases in which historic courses have been compromised by redesign?

Didn't the ASGCA publish an official paper or position on the equipment issue...why not publish an official position on historic preservation.

I would suspect far less than 10% of all courses ever designed are worth "preserving".  In other words, if 90%+ of all golf courses were significantly changed, the golf world would not be suffering a tragic loss of great golf architecture.  The key is determining which courses out there are worth preserving and/or restoring.  That takes a lot of effort and I wonder how many are really interested in taking to time to figure that out?  Unfortunately, even after putting in the effort, the answer is very subjective.

The other point is that at least of the older courses, there are very few that have been "preserved".  Most have already been radically changed over the years.  Maybe the question is better phased along the lines, "Is their some obligation to take the course back to what it once was"?  To try to preserve the architecture of a course as the architect finds it today will in most cases be preserving something very different from what it once was.  

"Why not publish an official position on historic preservation?" — That is a great idea.

And what would this official position discuss and what happens if someone does not adhere.  

This is an impossible task.  If Cypress Point wants to change the 16th hole there will be a boatload of architects at the door.