The Society to Protect Golf Architecture

[BCrosby]

Tom - A couple of thoughts:

The society should have no legal clout. It would be more like a resource available to clubs considering renovations or restorations. Clubs could take it or leave it. Giving it legal clout would make it unappealling to most clubs. I don't know how you would give it any legal force in any event.

What you are talking about will require lots of man-hours, money and access to lots of historical materials (code word for even more money). Outside of the USGA (see comment below), I don't know where you will find those things.

(Why the USGA with its staff, money and vast archival materials is not providing at least some of these services is beyond me. Afterall, the members of these old clubs are the constituents of the USGA. They pay the dues. The USGA appears to have no interest, however.)

I like the basic idea. It might work, but I suspect only on a smaller, less ambitious scale. Unless you have unlimited time and unlimited capital resources. (And if you do, please consider me your new best friend.)

Bob

   

[Joel_Stewart]

I still think it needs to be a foundation and not a society.

[ian]

I do not have a great deal of faith in any of the current foundations or associations to carry out there mandate properly. Why should a new body be any better?


Tom,

Many of the decisions that have lead to preservation have been because of the economic benefit of tourism. Preservation does not economicly strengthen a golf club, and like it or not, each private club is a business. They have the choice to run it as they see fit, and the members have the choice to endorse change or reject it because they have a vote.

Education is far more important than another additional impotent body.

[T_MacWood]

Bob
I agree, any contemplation of legal action (or legislation) would be counter productive.

And I agree it will require a lot of man-hours and some money...I'm not certain how much money. For it to be effective the man-hours need to be spread out over a number of men (and women). I'm confident there are men and women worldwide devoted to preserving great architecture. It should start small...a limited number of extremely important well preserved courses for recognition to kind of set the tone (with eye out for important work in imediate jeopardy)...but IMO it should be international.

Joel
I don't exactly know the difference between a foundation and society...I'm under the impression a foundation is a philanthropic organization.

[T_MacWood]

Ian
Most of the most prominent preservation organizations have nothing to do with economics or tourism. What was William Morris's goal when he founded the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings...if anything he was opposing architects who were making a killing on conjectural restorations. SPAB was made up of architects, historians and writers who had common interest--the goal was preserving great architecture for future generations (tourism and economics was furthest thing from their minds). To this day SPAB is still the model for modern preservation.

 The National Trust is an organization of private indiuviuals who spend millions of their own money...I'm not aware of that organization being accused of greed or shameless tourism goals. I don't believe UNESCO is driven by economics and tourism. As a general rule architects are sensative to preserving their heritage and they are the ones who drive the restoration movement.

You may be confusing the activities of local municipalities (historic districts) with the activites of national and international bodies. One hundred and twenty-seven years later SPAB is not imponent, the National Trust (1897) is not imponent, the National Landmark Foundation is not imponent, and there are number of similarly pontent national orginzations in Japan, Scotland, India, Italy, Australia, etc.

[BCrosby]

Restoration/preservation decsions are almost always controversial.

Any organization that makes additional information available to members favoring restorations/preservations would be a good thing. It would be a way for them to argue that the issue was more than one of personal taste; that larger historical issues are involved. The good guys won't always win these fights. But the existence of an organization like the one you envision would help.

BTW, the Ross Society sometimes plays that role at Ross courses. They can be a wonderful resouce in establishing the historical bona fides of a course. Merely getting the facts about a course's architectural pedigree can sometimes stop modernization efforts. Or at least slow them down.

Bob  

[ian]

Tom,

I admit I am wrong on this one.

Your point is very well made.

[TEPaul]

In my opinion, providing golf clubs with historical research material is a very important and so far sort of an untapped area. I see so much of this old historical material sort of coming out of the wood-work these days--out of attics, basements and God knows where. So many of these golf clubs seem to be getting interested in this stuff, it seems to be hitting a bit of a critical mass. We can see it in the number of restoration projects being done and contemplated these days. We can see how some of these old clubs are beginning to get reacquainted with their original architects which builds up pride in many clubs (that was true with my own in the last few years).

Now, it appears that some people such as Tom MacWood and some others on here are beginning to think that restoration efforts can actually be a dangerous thing to do because they inspire clubs to do something to their courses and the danger is they won't do it right or do something that really isn't what some on here consider to be restoration.

Providing good research and good material, I think is invaluable and it's something I've always felt GOLFCLUBATLAS itself could be one of the primary contributors.

But then comes the problem of what to do with that research material---of how to get it interpreted or reinterpreted back onto some of these old courses.

We certainly know that no club will be very interested in restoring old bunkers or whatever at 200 yards off the tee today if there's no capacity to lengthen the hole. Otherwise they might be restoring something that's irrelevant today in the play of the hole, where it wasn't originally.

The more I've gotten into this stuff over the last 7-8 years the more I feel every single golf hole has to be looked at in and of itself and what it's offering and can offer, and there are so many clever ways of going about that, many of which can be restorative somehow. A club and an architect have to work through the concept of every hole, though, in my opinion---and to work through the concept (whether original or not for every level of player) to determine how it works best for all. If that can be done somehow using all the old features, their placements, their look etc, great, but if it can't does anyone on here seriously think any club would want to restore it or preserve it? And if so, why? Just because it once existed and looks interesting or worked well once when the game was so different many decades ago?

There're always going to be fundamental differences between restoring or preserving something like a building or a work of art whose primary function is to be viewed and enjoyed that way. Golf is a game primarily and as such it's just so much more interactive and it's architecture is the primary expression of that interaction. I don't think it'll be very possible to get any golf club no matter how preservationist they may be to forego those important considerations.

Returning many of these old courses to the look of their original architecture may end up being the most important thing of all!

[TEPaul]

One of the ways historic buildings have been aided in their preservation in America recently (National Registry of historic buildings?) is that he US government has stepped in and induced those who own and control those buildings to restore and preserve them and to list them on the historic registry for which certain FEDERAL tax breaks are given (deductions from Federal Income taxes!!). If those buildings are not cared for and preserved according to the "covenants" that make up the "conservation easements" that protect those buildings, those who own those buildings are liable to pay back---with interest!!--- the savings they gained in the way of Federal income tax deductions. So, in that way, doing preservation through "conservation easements" is both an inducement but breaking the "easement" convenants is a form of penalty---and in some cases can be legally prevented.

To date, however, I've never heard of the US government allowing such a "conservation easement" (with Federal income tax deductions) on any golf course, no matter how historic someone might think it or its architecture may be.

How can the US government rationalize giving some private landowner federal income tax deductions to preserve an historic building if it doesn't appear to inure to the benefit of all Americans? The governement rationalizes that the restoration enhances and restores what is called in real estate terms the "quiet enjoyment" of and for all who can see that building---and presumably, anyway, that's everyone (although often it doesn't always work out that way in reality ).

[T_MacWood]

IMO the focus should be preservation; recognizing the most outstanding designs which are well-preserved and authentic (with appreciation for graceful evolution). A relatively small number of courses I reckon.

If a great old course wishes to modernize in order to attract potential events (every decade or so), that is their perogative. I don't believe it would be in the best interest of an organization focused upon preservation, protection, and authenticity to be promoting redesign....in fact just the opposite...wouldn't these actions be a major concern for such an organization?

Once you begin moving bunkers and softening greens the golf course losses its historical identy and authenticy IMO--it goes from the work of Ross, Flynn, Maxwell, MacKenzie, Tilly, etc to the design of whom ever is doing the work today.

As an example, the first course I would nominate for recognition would be the Old Course (the NGLA might be another). I don't care how far technology gets out of hand, the bunkers and greens should not be moved or recontoured. Perhaps these well preserved but outdated  courses could serve as motivation for reform.

The issue of restoration is a complicated one, IMO it should be studied, and the pros and cons debated. An organization made up of well respected historians and architects would seem to be the natural group to take up the task. Perhaps reaching a consensus, and puting it down in the form of a charter.

[BCrosby]

Tom MacW/TEP -

East Lake is Exhibit A for "restorations" done without research. To wit: Rees justified his Reesification of EL on the grounds that the Ross drawings for the course were lost and, therefore, there was no reliable guide for what Ross had wanted.

He was right, the Ross drawings are lost. But there are any number of aerials of EL available dating back to 1936. Together with old magazine articles, score cards, brochures, and the aerials there is ample evidence for how Ross had designed and built the course. (Ross even came back several times to build the NLE other 18 at EL. So several post construction site visits were probably involved. The EL that existed in '36 was probably pretty close to what Ross wanted.)  

I talked to one of the decsion makers at EL a couple of years ago. He was quite suprised to learn that such aerials existed and said he would have loved to have seen them. Too late now. The money has been spent. (Dark conspiracy question: Did Rees know the aerials existed?)  

(BTW, I've thought for a long time that there is a need for an archive for important historical architectural drawings, notes, etc. I've floated the idea here a couple of times. Michael Fay has done the same. The response has been luke warm at GCA and elsewhere. I think it is needed. There are real obstacles, including location, money, staffing. But it's still needed.)

Bob



 

[T_MacWood]

Bob
I agree with you---there are far too many liberties taken in the name of restoration, and there is a need for a depository of materials (or if thats not possible, at least an inventory or catalog of known materials, so people know where to go).

[Patrick_Mucci]

BCrosby,

How do you know that the club's sole intent was
"restoration" ?

Or are you too, taking liberties ?

Tom MacWood,

I think one of the problems with your idea is its very foundation.

You assume that these clubs have members who deeply care about their history, members who understand the value of their architecture, and, most importantly, that those members are in power at that club.

An awful lot of stars have to line up for your idea to take hold, especially on an ongoing basis.

[T_MacWood]

Pat
The relatively small number of clubs that would be canidates for recognition (like the Old Course, Cypress Point and NGLA) obviously do care. The others that don't care perhaps might be effected by the positive recognition given to the clubs that do.

I'm under no illusions. Forming a society to preserve and protect golf architecture is not going to magically alter the current situation, just as the formation of The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings did not stop the degredation of important buildings over night. It took years (decades really) of trial and error, learning how to pressure and influence through a combination of public praise, criticism and most importantly education, before the successes out weighed the failures.

[T_MacWood]

Pat
When it comes to recognizing outstanding architecture....preserving and protecting great work for future generations...I don't believe it matters what Rees Jones marching orders were at East Lake. This is an example of a course remodeled in the name of restoration or a remodeling mislabled as a restoration. You can argue he improved the course or fulfilled his mission (I don't if he did or didn't), but he should not (nor the club) claim what was done was a restoration of the Donald Ross golf course--it is a Rees Jones golf course.

I believe it is important to define exactly what a restoration is, and isn't, to prevent confusion and/or misreprentation.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

The interactive nature of the golf course makes it hard to retain the status quo or restore a golf course.

I think the high profile clubs like NGLA recognize and are looking to preserve their architectural history, on the other, can the same thing be said about Pine Valley ?

The argument against restoration, that I hear most often, is,
look at what ANGC and PV are doing, they're not restoring, they're improving, and if it's good enough for them, it's good enough for us.

That can be difficult to overcome at the committee or board level, let alone with the membership.

[T_MacWood]

I don't believe it should be the role of a preservation organization to promote restoration necessarily, especially when some important courses have been redesigned (or poorly restored) in the name of restoration. IMO the focus should be preservation and protection.

It would be an exercise in futility to promote a resotration of ANGC. Also in some cases the redesigned course is more important architecturally or historically than the original course. As much as I admire the original Ross design at Oakland Hills, isn't the RTJ monster the important design architecturally?

I don't know exactly what PV has done in the way of remodeling recently...my impression is the course is well preserved, relative to most other golf courses of its era (excepting possible tree overgrowth and evolutionary change due to age/maintenance).

Comparing ANGC's activities--a tradition of methodical redesign--to PV, it seems to me, is not exactly appropriate or fair.

[BCrosby]

Pat -

EL is a course of real importance in ATL. When Cousins bought the property, there was public concern that the course would be dramatically changed. (To be more specific, the fear was about structural changes. Everyone agreed it needed better conditioning.) To allay those concerns, EL was careful to claim that there would be a restoration "in the spirit of" Ross. Or something like that. The "in the spirit of" part was necessary, EL claimed, because they didn't have the Ross drawings and, after five decades, couldn't be sure what the Ross design looked like. The notion was that they were going to do the best they could, given the lack of historical guide posts.

My point is that neither EL nor its archtiect tried very hard to remedy this lack of historical information. In fact, I doubt they tried at all. With a just little digging you could have found lots of it. Heck, I did and I was just messin' around one afternoon.

Bob

 

[TEPaul]

"The argument against restoration, that I hear most often, is,
look at what ANGC and PV are doing, they're not restoring, they're improving, and if it's good enough for them, it's good enough for us."

Pat:

Regarding your post #42, I don't think you should be talking out of both sides of your mouth.

What PVGC has done in the last year is in no way similar to what ANGC has been doing to their course for decades. PVGC, recently added tee length to holes #7, 9, 13, 18 and may add tee length to a few more such as #3, 4, 14 and 15. They also added bunkering on the right of the fairway on #9 and #18. In addition to that they've been removing tree overgrowth in various areas---ideally with the goal of restoring the playable function of some of Crump's original bunkering (that has been lost in trees).

NGLA recently removed the trees from the course. Primarily that involved the area between #3 and #16 and #8 and #11 and the significant tree behind #15. NGLA has also added tee length over the years as you've pointed out on here in the past. They also added tee length on #14 and #18 this year and you've been lobbying that they also add tee length on #7.

So what's the difference really in what both courses have done? Do you now disagree with all these changes, whether restorative or improvement or just some of them selectively?

If you're going to support some philosophy of preservation you can't really have it all ways!

At PVGC I personally think the additional tee length on #7, #9, #13 are interesting as it can be proven that Crump himself planned additional tee length on those specific holes in the same way that was just done (except on #7 it probably should've been on the right side). Additional tee length on #4 would effect the very thing that William Fownes lobbied hard for in 1921! I think adding tee length on #3, and #14 serves no purpose just as adding tee length in the last 3-4 years to #10 really served no purpose. Additional tee length where its planned on #15 would improve that hole and ironically is something both Crump may have envisioned and Hugh Alison did as well with that hole in a different iteration.

I think the addition of bunkering on #9 and #18 was unnecessary and somewhat counter to the intention of the design. Certainly the clearing of the overgrowth of trees, particularly in areas of Crump's old bunkers should be considered a good thing.

I believe the general philosophy of Tom MacWood's thread here to preserve and protect certain architecture is a good thing but only if organized correctly and intelligently. What I don't like from Tom MacWood's suggestions are that restorations should in some way be discouraged.

If that was done what would have happened with some of the really good and successful restorations that have been done recently---eg, Plainfield, Kittansett, GMGC, Beverly, Skokie, Oakmont, Aronimink---the list is long?

I completely support Tom MacWood's efforts to make good historical research material available to particular golf clubs as Bob Crosby has just suggested would have been beneficial to East Lake! What I don't think is beneficial is for someone like Tom MacWood to start making specific suggestions (through some society or not) to those golf clubs about what to do with that historical architectural material as to the details of various holes and such and what should and shouldn't be restored or not. I just don't believe Tom MacWood has enough knowledge and understanding of many of those golf courses to be able to do something like that. And the same would probably be true of most others--even architects.

If any of those people had a far greater understanding of the golf courses their recommending preservation of, though, I'd probably feel very differently about their suggestions, as I think those clubs in question should and would too.

[T_MacWood]

"....if that was done what would have happened with some of the really good and successful restorations that have been done recently---eg, Plainfield, Kittansett, GMGC, Beverly, Skokie, Oakmont, Aronimink---the list is long?"

TE
What is your definition of restoration? What Oakmont did in clearing hundereds (maybe thousands of trees) is tremendous and restorative of the historical playing conditions, but I believe it might be more appropriate call it a consolidation to differentiate it from more evasive forms of restoration. From historical preservation point of view consildation is preferred over restoration in most cases.

I really can not comment on Plainfield, Kittansett, and GMCC...I don't have much information on the original courses vs the restored courses. My impression is Gil Hanse is one of the most thoughtful, careful and respectful restoration architects.

Aronimink is not a restoration, for something to be restored it had to have existed. Which brings up one of the dilemmas IMO with the current restoration trend, mislabeling redesigns as restorations...historic courses like Bethpage, East Lake and Aronimink are examples...part resotration, part redesign, all packaged as restoration. Perhaps an orginzation focused upon preservation, authenticity and histocial documentation may have an impact on similar projects.

I'm familar with original courses of Skokie and Beverly, but I haven't seen the work that has been done. In your opinion were these courses acurately restored? Did Skokie restore the Langford consolidation from the 1930's or did they try to reintroduce a psuedo-Rossian look? Beverly was one of the more unique Ross designs, very unique bunkering, atyplical...did they retain that uniqueness? I don't know the answers.

"What I don't think is beneficial is for someone like Tom MacWood to start making specific suggestions (through some society or not) to those golf clubs about what to do with that historical architectural material as to the details of various holes and such and what should and shouldn't be restored or not. I just don't believe Tom MacWood has enough knowledge and understanding of many of those golf courses to be able to do something like that. And the same would probably be true of most others--even architects."

Where did I write that I will be making specific suggestions? I suggested an organization to protect golf architecture should be formed consisting of experts from around the world (historians, golf architects, writers)...a good model might be SPAB...I never suggested I would be one of the experts. If it will make you feel better, I will disqualify myself.

I also said ithe organization's focus should be narrow...a relatively small number of outstanding well-preserved designs -- with preservation, protection and education being its principal assignment.

Just one man's opinion.

[TEPaul]

Tom:

I'm certainly not trying to pick on you personally with regard to someone who may not know enough about some course to offer good advice on what's best for the course---eg, restoration, improvement, whatever anyone wants to call anything done to a course!

I was just talking in the last few days to the President of Fox Chapel and he was explaining that when the club got going on their recent project (some years ago) they really weren't thinking much along the lines of restoring Raynor, or Raynor as accurately and perhaps purely as they might be now!

The reason he gave was when they got going there really wasn't anyone in the club who was thinking along these lines or who knew much about the concept of restoration. So restoration wasn't exactly communicated to Brian Silva as much as it might be if their project was starting now.

That to me is where a society such as the one you're proposing could've been of real help. But once that historical information and presumably historical and restoration interest was passed on to the club then it's up to them and their architect about how to go about it and not some members of the society who passed historical research material on to them. The reason I say that is they're the ones who know their course the best and what's best to do with it!

By the way, that president of the club gave a good deal of credit to guess who for opening their eyes and minds to restoration? Golfclubatlas.com, that's who! The present green chairman, David Gookin, as you may have noticed, has been an occasional participant on here, presumbably to learn as much as he can about the best way for the club to proceed from here. That probably will be more restoration than it would've otherwise been because of Fox Chapel's participation on here.

But the club is still going to do what's best for them despite how anyone on here wants to define what restoration, improvement or preservation is.

What do I define as restoration? I really don't. I try to look at concepts of holes, how well they worked or didn't work either back then or now and why and how to make them work best today. If that's restoration of the way they once were if they were needlessly altered and corrupted, then great! If not then I see nothing wrong in working hard to make them play as well for all as they can. If an architectural concept was good once I believe in working hard to restore that concept! I think most architects both back then long ago would agree with that philosophy! It's mighty hard to say they wouldn't if you look closely at the complete extent of the architectural work they did during their own careers!

[A_Clay_Man]

I agree that GCA.com is closer to what's needed, than another society. If anything it should be a separate committee, or responsibility, at the ASGCA. Any reference, where intelligent future decisions can be made. What do people do now? Try to get Ben Crenshaw on the phone?


Extrapolating, this idea implies respecting ALL the current archies, as we move into the near future, and beyond. Not just the old boys.

Plus whos' to say what's great? It has to be all or nothing.

The slides and presentation at Jasper Park, illustrated the futillity to restore to any original. Thompson continually tweaked his masterpiece, there. And it shows. So, once again, who's to say what's right besides the artist, and even then, is he/she ever really satisfied?

Maybe going forward the ASGCA could encourage it's members to document what their intentions are, or were on each design. Then at least, if someone wants to alter those principles, it's a conscience informed decision.

[T_MacWood]

TE
It is the perogative of each club to do what they want...no hisorical organization is going to take away that freedom.

If a society to preserve and protect golf architecture, consisting of international experts, presented a club with research, historical doucmentation and a report outlining the course's architectural importance (based upon first hand knowledge of that golf course), the club would still be free to do whatever they wish.

 However, if they chose to go another direction and they compromised the course in some way (in the view of the experts), it would be proper for the society to bring that to the clubs attention, to the architects attention and to the attention of everyone who maybe interested in golf architecture...in fact wouldn't it be their duty? Isn't that how the preservation movement in architecture began?

"What do I define as restoration? I really don't. I try to look at concepts of holes, how well they worked or didn't work either back then or now and why and how to make them work best today. If that's restoration of the way they once were if they were needlessly altered and corrupted, then great! If not then I see nothing wrong in working hard to make them play as well for all as they can."

This is precisly the reason such an organiztion should be formed. A blurring of the term, little distinction between restoration, renovation, modernization and remodeling. If an architect wants to improve and rework 99% of the golf courses in the world...go for it. IMO a very small percentage of golf courses should be the focus of this organization.

"I think most architects both back then long ago would agree with that philosophy! It's mighty hard to say they wouldn't if you look closely at the complete extent of the architectural work they did during their own careers!"

I agree with that, but they also had an appreciation for outstanding historcial golf architecture, they genrally promoted the preservation of courses like St.Andrews and were not slow to criticize the reworking of important courses. Bernard Darwin being the father of golf architecture conservation.

[T_MacWood]

Adam
Have you been following this thread? Throughout the entire thread I have said the focus should be on preservation, not restoration. And upon the most important well-preserved works.

"Plus whos' to say what's great? It has to be all or nothing."

huh?

Throughout the history of golf architecture, prominent writers and architects have identified what is great. This is equally true in fine art, architecture, music, etc. Those who study these arts form a consensus. Each individual is free to agree or disagree, to have their own opinion, but I believe it is an accepted practice for scholars to recognize outstanding work.

[T_MacWood]

BillV
I'll take your word for it, that the redesigned Aronimink is outstanding. Perhaps fifty years from now the society to preserve and protect outstanding golf architecture will recommend protection of Prichard's Aronimink (at this point I'm certainly not advocating going back to the orginal Ross course). Not unlike recommending RTJ's Oakland Hills should be preserved....a very important design in my view.

That being said let us not confuse redesign with restoration...it leads to examples like U. of Michigan, Riviera, LACC, Columbia, Yale, etc. A simple clarification of the term might prevent a number of these mistakes.