Should we be preserving modern architecture?

« **Reply #25 on:** February 10, 2007, 05:04:43 PM »

Interestingly, I would have said The Dunes Golf & Beach Club in Myrtle Beach was one of the three Trent Jones courses which should have been preserved as it was ... but Jones himself (or Roger Rulewich) redid a few holes there 10-15 years ago.

The tough thing about it is that if it is important to a designer that his course tests the best players, then he will himself fall victim to believing that it needs to be "updated" every 20 years. Luckily, I don't care much about that; and I haven't seen anything so far that makes any of my courses obsolete for the average golfer, though some of them could certainly have been taken care of better.

Which three of my own courses would I like to see preserved? If we were being realistic about this, you would have to choose courses where the client was on board with preservation, or it would make no sense. Right now, I think I'd opt for Pacific Dunes, Ballyneal, and maybe St. Andrews Beach, considering how controversial it is with the low-handicap Aussies on this site.

« **Reply #26 on:** February 10, 2007, 07:04:06 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on February 10, 2007, 04:34:45 PM

Mike Young,

The difficulty I have with your perspective is the destructive and indescriminate nature of the process to "improve".

Surely, certain architecture merits preservation rather than alteration.

The problem is that those who make the decision to alter may have agendas, lack vision and understanding.

My feeling is that far more holes/courses have been disfigured rather than improved, and due to that fact alone, I favor the retention of the status quo.

Golf clubs, like patients facing surgery, should seek second and third opinions from experts in the field.

And, if you look at the process of attempting to improve a hole, where does the concept, the idea to improve the hole come from ?

Usually, from a self serving advocate, rather than from outside, independent consultants. Thus, most alterations are a product of inbreeding, and the results are rightfully named in the majority of cases.

Pat,
I never mentioned "improve".
I ma saying the same thing you are saying I think.
When I say be ahead of things..I mean know where you are going as things evolve so that some clown doesnt come along and completely botch a place....BUT you are correct ......it is imperative one has someone in charge that has the capcity to initiate such....
Mike

« **Reply #27 on:** February 10, 2007, 07:52:53 PM »

I have not read any of the posts here and this probably was already covered. But if we should be doing anything, it would be "documenting modern architecture". We strongly recommend this in all our master plans. There are so many great techinques available today that future "restorationists" will have all the information they need without having to resort to many of the things we have to do today, to restore older designs.

« **Reply #28 on:** February 10, 2007, 08:08:12 PM »

Mark Fine,

That's an excellent suggestion that gets lost because most feel that NEW courses don't need to preserve their documentation or pedigree because everyone will remember it.

With today's technology, digitizing and retaining detailed plans should be a simple task.

« **Reply #29 on:** February 10, 2007, 11:52:56 PM »

"TEP: There are many who feel that most of the courses of the 1950s and 1960s were uninspired and it really wasn't until Pete Dye came along and was willing to take chances that modern golf course architecture bloomed. Do you feel that is true and are you suggesting that some of those courses should not be preserved and need to evolve?"

Jerry:

I'm asking a question if modern architecture should be preserved.

Golden Age architecture wasn't very well preserved. Why was that?

Perhaps Golden Age architecture wasn't well respected by those who administered to it shortly after it was built.

Did they feel back then Golden Age architecture was good enough to preserve?

Do we feel "modern age" architecture is good enough to preserve?

Historically these are the very same questions!

« **Reply #30 on:** February 11, 2007, 05:21:36 AM »

Its an interesting take some have to treat gca as art and preserve it for the sake of art. I don't quite hold that view because gca is first and foremost a playing field. If a course needs to evolve to further that aim then so be it. Gca has a long history of evolving and many of our best courses are better because they were allowed to evolve. I think the more specific question to be asked is in which circumstances should courses be changed? If it is to host a tournament and offer the pros a harsher test, then no, I don't think this is a good reason to alter courses. If it is to counteract modern "advancements" in technology, such as the ability to stimp greens at 12, no, this is not a good reason flatten greens.

Each club has to decide for themselves what is best for their membership. Granted, perceived mistakes will be made and argued over endlessly on this site. However, if gca is anything, it is not a science and should not be treated as such. There is no such thing as an expert in the field in the same way as there are experts in scientific fields. There is certainly a case to be made for experience in and the study of gca as validators of opinion. However, it is my feeling that many of the reasons why some may want to preserve courses falls under the heading of art: The intangible elements of a course that when combined offer pleasure, even joy to the golfer, or at least a subset of golfers. This side of gca is of course a matter of opinion, not science, not fact - a distinction which is sometimes blurred on this site. For sure, I think some opinions are better than others, but they remain opinions.

I would like to see some courses of historical significance preserved. Though I think the significance has as much to do with the history of the club as much as the design of the course. I know its pie in the sky stuff like Tom D.'s idea of saving 3 courses per architect, but there you go.

Ciao

« **Reply #31 on:** February 11, 2007, 06:48:15 AM »

Just do a good job documenting it (including any change down the road). Then in 50 years or so we can worry about answering those questions that Tom Paul has raised and can act accordingly.

« **Reply #32 on:** February 11, 2007, 07:48:00 AM »

Mark:

That's true. Among other things, I don't think a club can ever take too many photographs of their golf course.

« **Reply #33 on:** February 11, 2007, 11:21:44 AM »

I know it might seem a little self serving, but instead of just preserving modern architecture maybe an effort could be organized to help preserve modern architects?

Most of us have no pensions or retirement plans beyond just scrapping together whatever it takes to feed our families year to year.

I know I would be happy with just a little stone cottage somewhere in Ireland and some light labor work to keep one fit....and maybe in the winter a little casita in Mexico or anyplace warm for the bones.

Hey, maybe we could get a little cluster of dwellings where more of us could congregate...a colony where we could exchange ideas and play horseshoes or arm wrestle.
And maybe we could have a little pub or palapa with a cute barmaid we could tease and that has good soup and drink.
And all our children could come and visit us, and they would be old enough so we could begin to tell them our life stories........ a kind of on golden pond for modern golden agers

« **Reply #34 on:** February 11, 2007, 12:15:11 PM »

Quote from: Sean Arble on February 11, 2007, 05:21:36 AM

Each club has to decide for themselves what is best for their membership.

Sean,

The problem with your statement is that it's not a static assessment, one that's once made, remains unchanged, in perpetuity.

The "deciding" you allude to is done every two years or so by a revolving door of members newly appointed to committees or elected to the board.

As such, there is no continuity, no duty to preserve what's valuable, or what's been decided, and, no process to assess what's valuable, as tastes, and assessments change every two years. Memberships also change for a variety of reasons, so, there's no stability with the membership or with the frequent changing of the guard.

With each new committee, board, executive committee and President the evaluative process begins anew.

What was set in stone by one board is overturned by the next. It's the perpetual cycle of "improving" the golf course and/or fulfilling or undoing agendas.

Once you understand the dynamic of governance at most clubs you'll begin to understand the tenuous nature of their golf courses.

The other factor which exerts some influence is the "keeping up with the Jones's" syndrome.

If one club in the area undertakes a project on their golf course, clubhouse, etc., etc., it's not unlikely that other clubs will follow suit, irrespective of need. It's more a matter of perception and perception becoming reality.

It's difficult to preserve good architecture.

I suspect that Tom Doak and other living architects who have created very good golf courses will have dramatic spikes in their blood pressure when memberships seek to "modernize" their golf courses 20 years from now.

« **Reply #35 on:** February 11, 2007, 12:35:30 PM »

Quote

I suspect that Tom Doak and other living architects who have created very good golf courses will have dramatic spikes in their blood pressure when memberships seek to "modernize" their golf courses 20 years from now.

Quote

I think that's a very realistic assessment, Patrick. I think that's why, along with photos/mapping etc of the design, a list of the truly critical and essential principles and philosophies behind it would be helpful.

Peter

« **Reply #36 on:** February 11, 2007, 12:40:00 PM »

I'll side with Mike on this one. Courses are living entities - and living business entities as well. Many have changed owners and roles (from private to muni for example) more than once, and need revisions to make them fit the living audience and players, not some dead guys who played it years ago.

I have already seen some of my courses undergo bunker reductions for cost reasons, very similar to what must have happened in the 30's to great courses built just a few years earlier.

Is it better to have the course survive tough times financially in altered form or to have its architecture preserved under two feet of weeds, at least for a few years until a developer buys the land for houses?

If any of my courses survive in any substantial form I consider it enough of a compliment.

BTW, as opposed to Tom D, I don't think I would pick three courses to preserve, but I might leave a list of three holes per course that I consider favorites, and strongly suggest to the Owners that I would like at least those holes preserved. Since each course is a collection of holes, but not a "greatest hits" collection (necessarily) I figure that would be a better reflection/preservation of my design philosophy than the preservation of any single course.

That said, and looking ahead to my death, I would hate to saddle anyone from the grave with my wishes. And the 3 hole per course suggestion would make any historian interested in my work (hmm, perhaps my son and.....well, no one) travel a bit further to study things. I guess that makes the documentation and 3D model thing (along with some filmed or written commentary from the gca) the best way to go. Then, the current players of any course get (if the remodeling gca makes the "right" decisions) a hole well suited for them, while the historians get the information they desire.

« **Reply #37 on:** February 11, 2007, 01:31:41 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on February 11, 2007, 12:15:11 PM

Quote from: Sean Arble on February 11, 2007, 05:21:36 AM

Each club has to decide for themselves what is best for their membership.

Sean,

The problem with your statement is that it's not a static assessment, one that's once made, remains unchanged, in perpetuity.

The "deciding" you allude to is done every two years or so by a revolving door of members newly appointed to committees or elected to the board.

As such, there is no continuity, no duty to preserve what's valuable, or what's been decided, and, no process to assess what's valuable, as tastes, and assessments change every two years. Memberships also change for a variety of reasons, so, there's no stability with the membership or with the frequent changing of the guard.

With each new committee, board, executive committee and President the evaluative process begins anew.

What was set in stone by one board is overturned by the next. It's the perpetual cycle of "improving" the golf course and/or fulfilling or undoing agendas.

Once you understand the dynamic of governance at most clubs you'll begin to understand the tenuous nature of their golf courses.

The other factor which exerts some influence is the "keeping up with the Jones's" syndrome.

If one club in the area undertakes a project on their golf course, clubhouse, etc., etc., it's not unlikely that other clubs will follow suit, irrespective of need. It's more a matter of perception and perception becoming reality.

It's difficult to preserve good architecture.

I suspect that Tom Doak and other living architects who have created very good golf courses will have dramatic spikes in their blood pressure when memberships seek to "modernize" their golf courses 20 years from now.

Pat

You are 100% correct. Committees and "dictators" can make changes for the wrong reasons hence their work is almost destined to have mixed results. Thats life. I don't really see it as a "problem" because we are talking about someone's property and/or business. It is for them to decide how best to serve their clientele. We on this site argue about the details of courses which we have little to do with. We should do well to remember that love of a course isn't nearly the same as having a say in it's future.

As I say, I would like to preserve for historical rather than gca reasons, but that is not likely to happen any day soon and probably rightly so- unless there is a very generous benefactor out there willing to buy clubs and turn them into "museums".

Ciao

« **Reply #38 on:** February 11, 2007, 03:45:50 PM »

I wouldn't artificially preserve anything, unless it was owned by the Architect or some patron, and outlined in his/her will along with a self funding trust for its care....if its good enough it will preserve itself [until it loses its relevance], and then its adios, just like everything else over time.

« **Reply #39 on:** February 11, 2007, 04:24:05 PM »

Quote from: Mark_Fine on February 10, 2007, 07:52:53 PM

I have not read any of the posts here and this probably was already covered. But if we should be doing anything, it would be "documenting modern architecture". We strongly recommend this in all our master plans. There are so many great techinques available today that future "restorationists" will have all the information they need without having to resort to many of the things we have to do today, to restore older designs.

My thoughts, too. There is no way to control clubs if they want to revise their courses. And frankly if any club doesn't like their course, they should change it, even if folk around here might call them heretics.
I also want to see the Stone Harbours and others that represent reactionary design throughout the history of course design 'preserved', and by that I don't mean the course should stay as it was, I just think that students of the game should have access to various media - photo, video, print - through which they can study.

« **Reply #40 on:** February 11, 2007, 04:46:42 PM »

It's ridiculous just to call for "documenting" golf architecture. We don't build courses just so nerds can look at old pictures of them fifty years hence. You either value some architecture enough to stand for preserving it, or you don't ... unless of course you're trying to make a buck restoring it.

Paul: Do you really think that all of the old courses were changed because they were obsolete and that change was necessary?

« **Reply #41 on:** February 11, 2007, 05:19:33 PM »

Quote from: Tom_Doak on February 11, 2007, 04:46:42 PM

It's ridiculous just to call for "documenting" golf architecture. We don't build courses just so nerds can look at old pictures of them fifty years hence. You either value some architecture enough to stand for preserving it, or you don't ... unless of course you're trying to make a buck restoring it.

Paul: Do you really think that all of the old courses were changed because they were obsolete and that change was necessary?

Tom

I spose my response would be what does "stand for preserving it" mean? Is this just talk or do people have to do something?

Ciao

« **Reply #42 on:** February 11, 2007, 06:46:16 PM »

Quote from: Tom_Doak on February 11, 2007, 04:46:42 PM

It's ridiculous just to call for "documenting" golf architecture. We don't build courses just so nerds can look at old pictures of them fifty years hence. You either value some architecture enough to stand for preserving it, or you don't ... unless of course you're trying to make a buck restoring it.

Tom, there are those that value the architecture.
Unfortunately, they're overwhelmingly outvoted at most clubs.[/color]

Paul: Do you really think that all of the old courses were changed because they were obsolete and that change was necessary?

Or because someone wanted to make an agenda driven change ?[/color]

« **Reply #43 on:** February 11, 2007, 06:54:24 PM »

TomD.....yes, in most cases I think I do.
I think I wouldn't want to mess with evolutionary development of courses.....kind of like time travel....because its hard to control the results and equally hard to control who's at the controls, whether its for change or trying to control change.

Your best stuff will make the cut on its own anyway, without some kind of life support........although you probably ought to join the ASGCA because people years from now will wonder why you weren't included [which probably would be a interesting topic on thread 304,002 in 2035 of GCA]

.

And on that topic....if they accept me for full membership this spring...well then I am going to nominate you for the the first 'hostile' takeover type membership nomination in the ASGCA whether you like it or not

.

« **Reply #44 on:** February 11, 2007, 08:02:30 PM »

Quote from: Tom_Doak on February 11, 2007, 04:46:42 PM

We don't build courses just so nerds can look at old pictures of them fifty years hence.

Tom,
You care if I use that quote on my company tee shirts and homepage....that may be your best

« **Reply #45 on:** February 11, 2007, 08:05:46 PM »

Mike:

It oughta be the official GCA t-shirt, but since I doubt Ran is going to opt for it, you are welcome to use it.

And Paul: I will be sure to document somewhere my thoughts behind not joining the ASGCA if it helps in any way to preserve my work in the future, though I am sure there are some qualified members who would be glad to rip up Pacific Dunes today so they can improve it, which is the whole freaking problem in a nutshell.

« **Reply #46 on:** February 11, 2007, 08:19:58 PM »

Tom Doak,
I'm surprised you are for "preserving" golf courses. Maybe you should define "preserving" before someone draws the wrong conclusion. You know fully well that golf courses are not static items. A course like Pacfic Dunes probably changes every day. My guess is that when you were building the course, contours and features probably continued to evolve right up until you got the grass seed to take hold. And then they continued to evolve after that and still are right now.

I remember a conversation we had with Peter Lewis, secretary of the Royal and Ancient's Golf Heritage Department. We were talking to him about changes to The Old Course. He pointed out that many of the changes are "shrouded in fog and I'm afraid whins". He went on to say that, "The course is changing as we speak. The wind is howling and sand is continually moving around the links."

Ongoing documentation is one way to potentially help "preserve" what was originally built should someone one day ever want to try to undo the years of change and evolution and restore something from the past.

Furthermore, I wonder how many architects think that their golf course was in its perfect "preservation form" on opening day? I doubt many. Heck, some guys like Flynn at times didn't even add all the bunkers to his courses till years after it was played. When do you start your preservation?

I still think the key is to understand and document as best you can what was originally there and how it evolved (for better or for worse). With the tools available today, it will make the process of restoration/preservation, call it what you want, that much easier in the future.

Just my opinion!
Mark

« **Reply #47 on:** February 11, 2007, 10:45:56 PM »

Quote from: Tom_Doak on February 11, 2007, 08:05:46 PM

Mike:

And Paul: I will be sure to document somewhere my thoughts behind not joining the ASGCA if it helps in any way to preserve my work in the future, though I am sure there are some qualified members who would be glad to rip up Pacific Dunes today so they can improve it, which is the whole freaking problem in a nutshell.

Tom,

I think your response in reply 25 is a bit more accurate than this one.......clients/owners determine which courses and to what degree they get ripped up. I don't know of a case where a gca went in and remodeled a course without a contract from the owner to do so, unless of course, he owned the course.

For that matter, in answer to your question to Paul C, yes, I think the courses were obsolete in some ways - either by the money they required for maintenance, or the distance the ball was flying, or speed of putting greens, or a combination of those things and the money thing. Yeah, mostly, its the money thing. Who cared if Dick Wilson thougt a Florida course needed 150 very expensive bunkers to be great design? Not the guy staring down the barrel of a gun from the bill collector!

And since owners own, what can the gca do other than document in case there is a time when someone sees fit to restore or sympathetically remodel?

The problem is that those who value the preservation of architecture are not generally those who own the courses, not that every gca has as big an ego as Tom Doak (hey, it does come with the territory) and thinks that naturally, they could do as well or better. Not only that, but every player who has ever played, or every rater who has ever rated, or every poster who has ever posted thinks he can do at least one thing better than the great (insert gca name here) and has little hesitancy to do so........

Its a great thread by TePaul, but in the end, no matter what anyone wants, the courses of today are going to change, just as those before did.

« **Reply #48 on:** February 12, 2007, 03:07:09 AM »

There is no doubt in my mind that 50 years from now GCA afficionados (aka "geeks") will be looking at old pictures from 2007 of Pacific Dunes and Giant's Ridge and Carnoustie and, etc. etc. with misty eyes, but also little doubt that what will have been changed over the 50 years will have been good, for the purposes of golf, golfers and the owners of the courses.

Good posts, Mark and Jeff. Hang in there, Tom D--maybe 50 years from now there will be a movie of your life called "Fountainhead! Not on my Friggin' Golf Course!!!" with Michael Douglas-Zeta-Jones III in the lead.....

« **Reply #49 on:** February 12, 2007, 08:39:01 AM »

There is nothing in the historical record that indicates all courses evolve for the better.

Some have. But even more have not. In fact some have been degraded badly.

I take little comfort in the notion that clubs in the future will know best.

As a practical matter there is no way to limit future changes. So I don't see the downside to creating a record. At least it will provide a base case. No club will be able to claim it didn't know what its architect wanted.

Bob

News:

Tom_Doak

Mike_Young

Mark_Fine

Patrick_Mucci

TEPaul

Sean_A

Mark_Fine

TEPaul

paul cowley

Patrick_Mucci

Peter Pallotta

Jeff_Brauer

Sean_A

paul cowley

Lloyd_Cole

Tom_Doak

Sean_A

Patrick_Mucci

paul cowley

Mike_Young

Tom_Doak

Mark_Fine

Jeff_Brauer

ForkaB

BCrosby