Tom

If you ever make it up to Dornoch (which I hope you will some day--even you might learn something!) you will see that Dornoch does not need to be redesigned, although (as I have said many times before) my mind is always open to such possibilities, particularly since the course has been so vastly improved from the numerous previous interventions.

PS--I didn't coin the affectionate diminutive for architect ("archie"), but I'm happy to use it, when appropriate.

Here is how I feel about our course. I know that this may be contrary to the norm and the thinking of the ad-hoc committee, however everyone deserves the right to voice their thoughts and if in the end we respectfully disagree then so be it.

The architecture of the course may very well not mean anything to anyone, but I am very passionate about the subject beacuse I think that it does matter. For 93 years we have been playing a course that was designed by an historically significant figure in golf course architecture, Herbert Fowler...would anyone tear down a Frank Lloyd home under the guise or movation that it will look like his original, would anyone resculpt Michaelangelo's David under the guise or motivation that it will look like his original? I think not, so why treat historically significant golf course architects and their courses any other way? Is a course not about the game of golf and the average golfer's shot making ability in order to be rewarded at the end of the day?  Perhaps the conversation we should be engaged in is restoration, not renovation. Perhaps the conversation that we should be engaged in is about "A Diamond in the Rough" and what would it take to polish up a valuable gem that we already own?

I understand the concepts that have been asked to be addressed in the new design, I just question whether or not it is right for Del Paso and lastly "What are the alternatives?" There are always alternatives.

Thank you again gentelman for your messages. I learn more each day. Mindy

Mindy,


I think a great many of us here appreciate your point of view.  Probably more so than you realize.  Considering that you appear to be a newcomer, so to speak, I'll give you a brief recap of recent events.

Your distinction between renovation and restoration is an apt one.  It's discussed quite often, in particular, more recent discussion has centered around Merion, Pasatiempo, Yale, Oakmont, Inverness, The Creek, Riviera, Cypress Point, MPCC and SFCC to name a few off the top of my head.  

Some have gone even further than restoration and have created a new notion of a "sensitive" restoration. It is the sensitive resoraton that I think you are advocating, based on the significance of the architect's place in the history of GCA.  Why redo the Mona Lisa, right?

Yet, at the same time, I think you recognize that even a wonderful Frank Lloyd Wright home can become run down if it is not properly maintained.  Even a wonderful Frank Lloyd Wright, such as the civic center in Marin, could use a facelift or "remodel" if it is not longer large enough to house the # of people that is demanded of it.

Now, I readily concede that this is a stretch, but I think you understand what I am getting at in regards to your Fowler course.  Thus far I believe that I've read that your course has some encroaching underbrush that has squeezed the fairways.  I've heard a need for a new practice facility and more parking for the members.  I think I read that the club has purchased additional land that could be incorporated into a couple of new features to the course.

Like in so many disagreements, the respective parties seem to be going polar on this one.  It happens here at GCA all the time.  SOmeone like Tommy is fanatical about his "hands off" policy.  Others are at the entire opposite of the spectrum.  I'd like to think the wise endeavour lies somewhere in the middle.  Especially in light of your clubs circumstances.  

Of the courses I mentioned above the following has occured:

Merion-Complete bunker renovation.  Some like the new bunkers.  Some hate them.  The routing was not altered.  Some claim the new work has violated the tradition of the "white faces of Merion".  Has it defaced the historical work of Hugh Wilson.....you tell me?

Pasatiempo-Here is a great example of a sensitive restoration.  Tom Doak and his crew have worked, based on old photography, to restore what Mackenzie originally built.  Routing not altered, just bunker work.
 
Yale-See the "tragedy at Yale thread".  It's been renovated.  Most hate it, think it has ruined the course.  Definately not a good example of a successful renovation.  

Oakmont-They undertook-may still be undertaking-a massive tree removal program.  The goal is to get the course nearer to what the Fownes original design entailed.  You could call it a sensitive restoration I guess, although the greens and what not haven't been messed with.  Still, there is a goal in mind.

Inverness-Many hands have worked here.  Art Hills, Fazio.  A lot claim that the new work is inconsistant with the original work of Donald Ross.  It's been renovated and not is another candidate for a sensitive restoration, if you believe what's there now is inferior.


Riviera-Sensitive restoration by Coore and Crenshaw, Renovation of a couple of holes by Fazio.  Highly controversial.

Cypress Point-Sensitive restoration of the bunkers.

MPCC-Renovation, perhaps a good course to look at when it comes to examining whether or not a renovation will give you a superior product.  Most are raving about Strantz's work, about how it will make a vastly superior course to what they had before.

SFCC-Unlike Pasatiempo, Doak reworked a green or two here.  What is the key, in my opinion, however, is that his new work fits with the old.  There is no loss in consistancy.

Lastly, I'd add that what would The Country Club at Brookline and Shinnecock Hills be if it wasn't for William Flynn's work there?  

I hope this helps and that I've got all my facts straight.  I'm sure someone will point out the truth otherwise.

I hope that if Kyle Phillips renovates your course that he works to incorporate as much of the original Fowler into the final product as possible.  AND, that he works to make his new features mesh with the old.  Retain the consistancy in style.

"Oakmont-They undertook-may still be undertaking-a massive tree removal program.  The goal is to get the course nearer to what the Fownes original design entailed.  You could call it a sensitive restoration I guess, although the greens and what not haven't been messed with.  Still, there is a goal in mind."

MDugger: The Fownes only "original intent" was to create America's most chellanging and different golf course. I enjoy your comments, but you fail in this example to arrive at the most suitable conclusion: Oakmont — to be a true legacy — will never be finished. At least it should not be.

If you were to "restore" Oakmont where would one determine is THE point in history that you might choose? Before the Chruch Pews? — of course not. Rid the course of the grand trees which buffer the Pennsylvania Turnpike? — of course not. Make the course a par-82, as it once was? — of course not.

No, the best approach is often an historic interpretation. Perhaps what you mean by "sensitive"...?

Anyway, the fact is that a golf course often is best brought along from where it is, many times the absolute best route is to allow it to change and be re-invented and along the way, yes, re-discovered. This is not to say that history should not be embraced. For it is always good to link to the past.

Adam, my good friend who is often misguided by the fresh air of New Mexico,

Don't you feel it might be more sensible to — first — find out whether there is anything to "restore" — and also, what this might be? I can think of no good reason to suggest Mindy consider your recommendation without knowing more facts and understanding what has already been proposed — and why.

I have very limited knowledge of Del Paso, but it seems like there have been many architects and pros monkying with the course over the years. I would be very surprised to learn that Fowler's design (whatever level he may have left) could even be brought back — I would also be surprised to be convinced that this would be a good idea without severe interpretation and leeway on the part of someone learned in the art and science of golf course architecture.

Mdugger,

C&C did not perform a sensitive restoration at Riviera.

I don't think that Inverness could ever be restored, and to my knowledge, based on discussions with members, no such project is under consideration.  I would like to see modifications to holes # 3, 5 and 6 as they are clearly out of character.

SPDB,

I'm not so sure that certain clubs have the right to alter their golf courses.  I would concede that they have the power to alter their golf courses, and that there is a distinction.

All too often, decisions are clouded by a veil of secrecy.
In many cases, not even the members of a club are aware of what is transpiring or what has been decided, for THEIR golf course.

I've seen situations where not even the committee members,  or Board members were aware of what had been decided by those who actually hold the reins of power.

So when you speak of the rights of a club, I'm not so sure that you're correct, because you imply that the entire membership endorses the project, and that the decision making process encompasses all of the members.

If a project was going down the path of mutilating the golf course, what recourse do club members, and concerned outsiders have, especially if the veil of secrecy exists.

Sunshine laws seek to prevent secret meetings by keeping the public involved, but there are no such laws governing a private entity.

Initially, the buck has to stop at the Chairman of the committees involved.

They should be identified, and they should be accountable for their actions.  They should be available to answer any and all questions regarding the project.  I don't think that these individuals should be demonized, but if they are about to make a bad decision, or have already made a bad decision, they should be brought to light and to task for their actions.

My next question to you is:

Is a membership transient ?

If so, do those transient members have the right to alter their golf course ?  If you say yes, then is the golf course open season every ten years to the revolving transient memberships

Isn't the preservation of the golf course the sole most important function of any current membership ?

Let's go back to the committee level.

Do the committee members possess the knowledge, historical perspective and architectural abilities to make such decisions on behalf of the membership ?

Where did the ideas come from ?
Why does the club want to make these changes ?
Does the club need to make changes ?

These are questions that each club needs to address when embarking on any project that would alter their golf course.

Remember, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Scrutiny and constructive criticism are valid, and should be SOP.

Pat,

What would you call what C & C did at Riviera?  Surely it was partly a sensitive restoration (bunkers), although now that you mention it I do recall reading something Coore said about the membership choosing not to restore some of the greens.

What was it then?

George -
That's the logic of shoot first ask questions later. Strong arming and intimidation as the first retreat will get you nowhere.

Do you think George B. would have the same influence he now enjoys if he simply insulted every committee member that was contemplating an unsympathetic Raynor restoration?

Heck, I wouldn't make a big deal out of it if Tommy was a member of Del Paso, and had been merely fed up following efforts to try and convince his fellow members of their errors. However, he made an on-the-fly assessment of the motives of Cliffhenry based on reading one post and lobbed insults at the guy (with a subsequent apology - but you can't unring the bell). Do you think Cliffhenry is now going to go back to the next committee meeting and say to his fellow members "I was insulted by a guy on a golf-architecture website, and it made me realize we made a mistake." ??

I'd hope you wouldn't slap a complete stranger who walked into your business. Why do it electronically? If a slap in the face (figurative or otherwise) is the first, default approach I'd say that therapy might be the best option.

What did you think my example of George Bahto was supposed to accomplish, if not an answer to your question?

Sean -

I was thinking about this while we were knocking out our last order & you're probably right, the benefit of the doubt should be extended upon an initial post. I will admit I'm pretty skeptical, but that doesn't warrant an attack.

I'd love to sit down with some of our restoration specialists & try to get honest answers about what gets through to members. George B's efforts are impressive, but I'm under the impression people seek him out as an expert. Such individuals would naturally be more receptive to a cautious gentle approach. I wonder if the situation at Yale doesn't (sadly) represent the typical situation with most golf course "owners", be it members or actual owners. I think most would be better served taking a stance of stewardship of special assets versus enhancers or developers of said assets.

P.S. Much as I'd like to occasionally, I haven't slapped any clients yet. And certainly not any strangers.

George - I went back and re-read Cliff's post to see if there was something in it which indicated affirmatively that they were disregarding Fowler's original design for something totally different. I couldn't find it. How are we to know what Cliff means by "the spirit of Fowler" without asking? Is it not  possible that he means a sympathetic restoration? An easy way to not find out is to insult him and charge him with negligence for what may amount to a mistaken use of a phrase. It's just as likely that the negligence may be Tommy's.

On balance, Geoff's response is probably a bit more diplomatic and more in the spirit (!?) of "caveat emptor."  

As far as George B.'s style is concerned, I think you may be confusing cause and effect.

Sean, Once again, lack of facts are contributing to YOUR negligence.

Phillip's proposed plan has it for a complete rerouting of the golf course which has a unique fortune of most every hole not having the sun in a player's eyes throughout the year. With Phillips REMODEL, it will be a complete reversal of this unique routing feature.

Try to stick on the facts Sean--or do you actually know any of them?