Define a successful restoration

[T_MacWood]

Being a purist (and proud of it), I definitely stress historical accuracy and preserving as much of the original work as possible.

[wsmorrison]

1 : an act of restoring or the condition of being restored : as a : a bringing back to a former position or condition :

2 : something that is restored; especially : a representation or reconstruction of the original form (as of a fossil or a building)

By definition, a restoration is a return to the original.  So any successful restoration would have to return to the original.

Take a look at the drawings and photos of the original Merion East course.  Do you think a successful restoration would be to return it to its original form?  The 1916 Brooklyn Eagle pamphlet contains Flynn's hole drawings.  According to you, the committee should have gone back to this version.  I think the changes made between 1912 and 1934 represent a vast improvement in the design and playability of the course.  The best of each hole could have been retained though practically speaking, very difficult to sell.

I cite this example as demonstration that there can and should be improvements to golf courses.  Of course, this can lead to disastrous results as we have seen so many times.  I share your disappointment but cannot share the view that a successful restoration preserves as much of the original work as possible.  A successful reworking should include restoration where it makes sense both from an historical perspective and to please an educated membership and some sensitive and well reasoned remodeling by an expert such as Prichard.  It is their club, and in America they have a right to do it their way even if they screw it up.

[paul cowley]

...in building architecture , preservations often opt not to restore a structure to its original form , but instead compromise and focus more on restoring the structure to when it represented its most architecturally mature period ...

buildings , the longer they are around , constantly endure changes and additions , some good ,some bad ...golf courses are similar but , being more organic , they are also influenced by the mother natures constant massaging.....not just the hand of man.

the designers of courses also mature and evolve throughout their careers.

......determining a balance between the above factors is the key to a successful restoration ......and the crux of the problem.

[TEPaul]

Wayne:

I almost completely share all you said about a successful restoration (or whatever some club feels like calling it) in your post above. Exactly restoring original architecture (or preserving as Tom MacWood may say) is a very noble goal, at least in theory, and should be something striven for at least as an initial goal but first and foremost that original architecture in both look and function must fullfill another necessary goal as golf architecture and that is to play as good as the architecture of that hole or course can today. If it fails to do that one has to assume that something isn't right and the goal of improvement to make a hole or course play as good as it can should be striven for.

Luckily, so much of this old architecture that in so many cases has been corrupted and/or obsoleted for one reason or another in past decades can do that if restored even exactly (generally not including some of it's placement that in no way reflect the chances in the game). I think that's the neat thing about really good restorations and the popularity they seem to be enjoying these days---it proves the best of old architecture, is sort of like an old camera---it really does work beautifully---particularly if the course is maintained again to reflect and enhance it's original playable intentions.

But everything in golf architecture does need to pass that necessary "play muster" and I'm so encouraged to see so much restored architecture doing that throughout entire memberships so well these days, even if, at first, those memberships may not have thought it would.

Again, I agree with you that restoration, real restoration, is a very noble goal but like you I don't necessarily believe that really good restoration and the idea of improvement are completely mutually exclusive. That fact may be the sticking point on this subject with someone such as Tom MacWood.

And if by what a membership may feel is an improvement Tom MacWood asks me again if I mean a good restoration architect can replace a great old Ross bunker with a zucchini patch, I just won't answer him this time---because that kind of question isn't worth it----it serves no real purpose in this kind of discussion---and an important subject to discuss today.

[mike_malone]

We ought not to make "restoration" too complicated an idea.If we just get rid of alterations made to classic courses we end up with something pretty darn close to the goal.Theeeen,one can add on features that can update the early practitioners goals by the use of archival material and informed conjectures of what they might do today.

  In many cases it is addition by substraction.

[ForkaB]

Rather than being abstract, why don't we just offer up real world examples and say why?  Well, perhaps we don't because those of us who have played "restored" courses often have little idea what they looked like and played in their "golden age" and those of us who imagine they know how those courses looked and played many years ago didn't (of course) play them then, and may not even have played them in their "restored" condition now.

I played 3 fairly recently "restored" DJR courses in MA last month--Weston, Winchester and Charles River.  The latter two are (and probably always were) superb golfing experiences--about as good as you can get in the USofA.  The former did (and always has) disappointed me.

Part of Weston's "problem" is that 50-60 years ago they took away 2 of Ross's better holes and added two clunkers to replace them (at least in part to build a driving range).  Given the current realities of what a club thinks a golf course "is", the old course will never be restored (and, quite frankly, probably shouldn't, as even with the old routing it could be good, but not even remotely great).

As for The River and Winchester, I have no idea how they looked or played prior to 2004 (or 1957, in terms of Winchester), but I really do not really care that much whether or not whatever work which has been done is "faithful" to Ross or Hatch or whoever laid out the place in the beginning.  I know of the dedication of Ed Baker and others vis a vis CRCC to being "faithful" to Ross, and what they have done there is the sort of thing that I suspect that Ross, in his dour Free Kirk way, would probably been very proud of.  Likewise for Winchester.

Why do we demand more than that?

[Dunlop_White]

There are many methods of restoring your original design.  

Sympathetic Restorations entail a careful "interpretation" of the original architect's style and design intent and then retrofitting such to the modern context of maintenance and play. Length is typically the additional ingredient. For instance, this would require not only recapturing lost carry bunkers, but also moving them further away from the extended tee to account for today's issues of length.  Here, architects endeavor to take the course "back to the future".  A sound understanding of the architects' philosophies and a reasonable interpretation of his design intent compliments such an adaptation. Timuquana is a good example.

Pure Restoration would require returning a course and its features back to its original sizes, shapes, positions, and distances exactly. However, massive amounts of historical evidence must first be acquired. (aerial photographs, topographical images, routing plans, green sketches etc.) Plus, original green sizes and can be determined through core-lines, and bunker shapes and depths can be determined through excavation....peeling back the accumulated excess. Pure restorations seem over the top in the modern context though. A 5,800 yard course is a museum piece for play. As Crenshaw once said, scalping your entire premises of all trees would be unreasonable..... though Oakmont has done an excellent job persuading us otherwise.

Date Specific Restorations: Merion

Comprehensive Restoration embodies the revival of the classical elements. Here, emphasis is diverted from the complex measurements of sizes, shapes, positions, and distances of the original features. Instead, the focus is placed on the common facets and characteristics inherent in the classical game. This includes recapturing variety and strategic choices through open spaces; reviving the mental elements of thought, mystery, decision making, shotmaking and recovery play; restoring firm, fast conditions in the fairway and through the green; and reinstituting complimentary turf conditions with a variety of natural textures and contrasts.

Most of us freely toss around this buzz word, "restoration", without qualifying its specific type: 1. "TRUE/PURE" 2. "PARTIAL/DATE-SPECIFIC" 3."SYMPATHETIC/EMPATHETIC" 4. "COMPREHENSIVE". Such terminology becomes more confusing when "renovation" is thrown in the mix. There's a difference.

[T_MacWood]

Wayne
Merion is an interesting example.

I would think one of the first steps in the restoration process would be to analyze the golf course’s architectural history in order to identify the course’s architectural high point--the restoration goal. I’m not sure anyone familiar with that course’s history would claim Merion’s high point was 1912.

Merion is also unique due to the continuity of stewardship….I would think that would and should be a major consideration. I could see a situation arise where it becomes difficult to decide between two (or more) architectural high points—perhaps 1930 and 2000. If restoring a course to 1930 means destroying the original work (and years of special care)…I’d opt for 2000 and the preservation of the original work (sans unnecessary trees and the addition of lost playing surfaces)…with perhaps the addition of a few lost features, constructed in a way--hopefully--to match the evolved look.

[TEPaul]

"....and what they have done there is the sort of thing that I suspect that Ross, in his dour Free Kirk way, would probably been very proud of."

That's easy for you to say, Rich, but you don't really know that and you should be condemned by the "Purist, and Proud of it" Society for saying such a thing. For all they know, and they know most everything from old photos and magazine and newspaper articles, Donald Ross very well may be so pissed off at Ed Baker for allowing Donald's sand flashed up bunker faces to be grassed down by Ron Prichard he very well may haunt the lives of both of them for the rest of time!

[TEPaul]

The truth about Merion East is some may think the so-called "high water mark" of the course may have been around the 1930s, some think it may have been in the early 1950s, others around 1971 while others say perhaps the early 1990s or even 2004. So the club makes the decision to pick one of those dates and the people who like it support it and all the others who liked one of the other dates or nothing at all slam the ears off Merion The irony is that most all the people who don't like the decision they made don't even belong to Merion and many of them hardly know the golf course and in some cases have never even seen it! But it's all nothing much more than the way of restoration architecture---such is life!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I think the difficulty is, even if you thoroughly researched and examined the history of the golf course, who is going to determine what its architectural "high water" mark is ?

TEPaul's course might be a good example, Ross, Maxwell and some tinkering from others.

Who would make the call on the architectural "high water" mark ?

The members ?
Select members ?
Outsiders ?
A combination ?

Do you think there would be unanimity ?

How would you break ties ?

It's far more complicated in reality then it is on paper, and I don't think there is a perfect solution although there may be a practical solution, and that usually involves compromise, which is contrary to your "purist" position.

I also don't know if there's a right or wrong answer.

Additionally, you allude to research as if every speck of information is there for the taking and examination.  In many cases nothing substantive exists, or research can only reveal time related information.

Clubs that choose a point in time, like Merion, or like I suggested at GCGC certainly can't be faulted if an abundance of information exists at the targeted time, and little else exists at other times.  Luck may have a lot to do with having the available information.

Remember too, that many clubs don't want to go back to restorations, their members want to modernize, and that presents a conflict to your "purist" intentions.  Many members don't care about what the club was like, they only care about how it was when they joined, how it is today and how it will be in the future.

In the democratically run clubs that I"m familiar with, a rigid, purist position to restore the golf course to it's original form, as it existed on opening day, would almost universally be rejected.

I'd focus on opposing current and future changes that depart from the original architecture, I think that's an easier battle to win.

But, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

[T_MacWood]

Pat
GCGC is another good example of a golf course that improved over a period of years--Emmet, Travis, Emmet again, Tillinghast.

The highwater mark could be determined by any of those individuals or groups or a combination of them. You would hope who ever it is, they have a thorough understanding of their course's history, of the architects-in-question's history and of history of golf architecture. It is unlikely you will get unanimous agreement.

If there is no evidence or documentation (or very little) I don't know how you can even suggest a restoration. In that case my question would be restore what? And why?

I'm less worried about restoring every detail than I am concerned with renovation in the name of restoration. In my view this is the biggest problem with the restoration trend.

[TEPaul]

In my opinion, this website with disussions such as this one get way too hung-up on descriptive terms, like restoration, rennovation, improvement and probably even something like  preservation (particularly with the way a lot of golf architecture evolves on its own anyway). It doesn't take long on most of these threads on this general subject to devolve into disagreements and arguments over what specifically these terms mean as if it really matters regarding what gets done on the ground! Most of the time our so-called "purist" contingent on here are the most vocal arguers and the most comprehensive mincer of these words and terms.

It doesn't really matter what you call it--it only matters what you do--eg what eventually gets onto the ground. A good example is our GMGC/Gil Hanse project. At first we called the project a true restoration and in many ways it is that. But the membership when we presented it to them didn't feel that comfortable with the term although they didn't object to that much of the Hanse plan itself (or no more than any club generally does in a real restoration or even any kind of architectural project). All they seemed to object to was what we were calling the plan--eg a "restoration". So we simply changed what we called the project to a "course improvement" plan but we did nothing more to change the plan itself than if we continued to call it a true restoration.

So terms, and the words used to describe these things to do with working with existing architecture are really meaningless in actual practice. What we should all be talking about here is to what degree things that still exist from original are going to be treated now and in the future and how things that originally existed that have been altered or obsoleted and removed are going to be put back on the ground again in both function and look.

Discussing anything else, if the nuts and bolts of what truly restoring or preserving old architecture onto the ground is or isn't about, is a waste of time to discuss on here, in my opinion.

[T_MacWood]

"In my opinion, this website with disussions such as this one get way too hung-up on descriptive terms, like restoration, rennovation, improvement and probably even something like preservation..."

TE
I reckon on that note you'll get strong agreement from a number of high profile improvers.

The mixing and interchanging of these terms is often due to a lack of historical information IMO, and leads to unfortunate results like Ojai Valley, Riviera, LACC and Bel-Air. I believe those golf courses would have been much better off it they had been preserved or accurately restored, as opposed to improved and renovated. These terms and definitions do matter.

It is also true that what is good for Gulph Mills or Medinah may not be good for Yale or GCGC. Not every golf course is a canidate for restoration.

[BCrosby]

Just caught up with this interesting thread.

It interesting how many of the issues raised above have been thrashed out in older debates about restoring important historical buildings. There are two main differences with golf courses:

- The restoration of historically significant buildings usually has clear economic motivations - tax breaks, community funding, tourism grants, etc. None of those things apply to golf course restorations.

- Few people live in restored buildings. Think Monticello, Mount Vernon, the Old Senate Chamber. They are, essentially, museum pieces. Otoh, people play golf courses - even very, very old ones.

Those differences mitigate against restorations of golf courses. There are no economic incentives and few clubs want their course to be a museum piece.

Having said that, it ought to be clear to anyone with eyes that real damage was done to many great courses. Especially during the Dark Ages (circa '50 to '80).

If restoration means nothing more than rolling back some of those destructive changes, then it will have been worth the effort. What and how much you do will depend on myriad factors. Club politics, money, environmental stuff, etc.

"Restoration" needs to be a protean concept. (See Dunlop's thread above.) If we or anyone gets too rigid about what a "restoration" means, the credibility (and scholarship) of those who care about historical issues will have been wasted.

In the end the only important question is will a restoration make the course better? If it won't, don't bother. Restoration is not an end in itself.

Bob

P.S. Notwithstanding the above, I still hope some club will have the guts to do a pure restoration of its Victorian look. Put back the square greens and bunkers the way they were in 1905. Build pyramids of sand. Make the course look and play like an anachronism.

In a buyers's market, it might give a club a little cache it wouldn't otherwise have. Plus, just for a change of pace it would be a gas to play a course like that now and then.



   

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I'd agree that many renovations are disguised in restoration terms, and that there is an inherent danger in that process.

But, with a fragmented membership, revolving power bases and changing trends, getting a club focused on a "purist's" restoration remains a daunting, if not impossible task.

Just look at the debate on this site and at GCGC over removing the pond on # 16 and restoring the hole.

And, if you could see GCGC today, after the trees in that area have been removed, you'd be even more puzzled as to why the club didn't "restore" the near green features.

[TEPaul]

"It is also true that what is good for Gulph Mills or Medinah may not be good for Yale or GCGC. Not every golf course is a canidate for restoration."

Tom MacWood:

In a general sense that may be true, but for some reason you seem to want to go beyond the general and get specific with a remark like that about a golf course, mine, you know very little about that you've definitely never seen, and as of now definitely never will. The point is you know nothing about it except perhaps that a number of architects have attribution there that perhaps you may have noticed at some point in C&W. That alone may influence your opinion of it. Other than that you have zero basis of knowledge and understanding to make a statement like that.

And so it sort of goes with you. As I've said many times I admire your facitility for finding raw research material (although just tapping Michael Hurzdan's very substantial personal and historic architectural resources isn't all that diligent or difficult an endeavor) but at that point my admiration ends completely. I think you have virtually no facility or ability to analyze that material constructively and realistically and less idea of how to effectively use it and manage it to get something actual and postive done on the ground.

But you certainly are very good at sitting in your ivory tower and your purist dream-world out there and pontificating on things architectural and golf courses you really know very little about other than in some 75 year old magazine and newspaper articles and decades old photographs. That's pretty much the extent of it for you, in my mind.

Some of us have gotten involved, learned, made mistakes and learned far more because of that and ultimately for the better of classic golf architecture, despite your uninformed protestations to the contrary. I understand research and also what to do with it. The latter you have very little idea about. We've worked really hard at my club for years to do what we've done---we're proud of our restoration and so many others admire it too now, including our fine architect Gil Hanse. The very last thing we need is to hear some arrogant and pompous jerk from Ohio who's never even been here to state that this course of ours in not even a candidate for a restoration.

I never thought it would ever come to this for me on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com because always in the past I've been more than willing to do anythng for people from this site to come here and enjoy and understand better what we have here. But I'm going to make my first exception in your case. My friends at these courses around here, and others in other areas who read this site generally consider some of your raw research material, particularly posted photos, interesting but most of your unrealistic opinions little more than a bother and a pompous ones at that.

Continue pontificating from your little ivory tower dream-world, Tom MacWood, I can't see that it will do much real good to benefit great and classic golf architecture in the end, and that's a shame. You pretty much have to get out there and get involved with real people, real memberships, real architects and real golf course architecture at the actual sites of these golf courses. One of these days, hopefully, you'll finally figure out, there's just no other way if you truly wish to be constructive!

[T_MacWood]

"The very last thing we need is to hear some arrogant and pompous jerk from Ohio...."

I don't blame you...you tell me who this jerk is and I'll have talken with him.

One thing we have in common...Hurdzan's generosity.

[TEPaul]

"I don't blame you...."

As ususal you pretty much miss the point of the subject being discussed. This is subject and a discussion about what 'a successful restoration' is and isn't not about you or me. But when you continually harp on and criticize classic course restorations particularly some of the smaller details of them on a series of golf courses you've never even laid eyes on that crosses the line in my book to a guy being an uniformed bother and eventually a jerk about this subject.

Again, you're lucky to have a good source and resource (Hurzdan) to come up with historical information and material, but as I've said to you a bunch of times that's by no means the end of the research process and then the restoration project process on any course considering and then executing a restoration. You simply have to go to the course to even begin to understand the restoration process just as a restoration architect does. God knows why you think you, of all people, are somehow immune from that necessary part. You simply will never have a particularly good grasp of an entire restoration project until you do that. Simply sitting in Ohio and looking at photographs is some evidence of something but not a large part of an entire restoration.

"One thing we have in common...Hurdzan's generosity."

You're most definitely right about that. Michael Hurzdan is an unusually nice and extremely generous man and Wayne and I  are continuously thankful to Michael Hurzdan. But the difference between Wayne and I and our Flynn research material and you and your research material is Wayne and I (Wayne somewhat more than me actually) have spent the last two years visiting and staying very much in contact with these Flynn golf clubs--in all cases as much as they want us to. Many of them have done restorations, some are in the process, and others considering it because of that Flynn material of Michael Hurzdan's that we have. In almost all cases that research material and our involvement with it with those clubs has had very interesting and very gratifying results in this whole subject of restoration.

You can sit out there in Ohio, Tom MacWood, and pontificate and criticize clubs for what they do but if you never get involved with them as we have and others have I just don't think you can or should be taken very seriously. You simply aren't doing what's necessary to be taken that seriously, in my book. It sometimes amazes me that some contributors on here seem take you as seriously as they might be when all you do is post photographs, pontificate and criticize from afar.

This subject is about a successful restoration and anyone who's been involved in them and in the entirety of them knows full well knowledge and understanding of what they are and how they work requires a whole lot more than you do and have done. Research is very important, often essential, I know simply because I did so much of it for my golf club going into a restoration and I can also see the effects of this incredible wealth of historic Flynn material we have on almost all his courses.

But you've just got to get out there and use it, Tom, there's no other way, although for some strange reason you seem to think there is. My suggestion to you is that you begin to do more of that, get out there, even if it's for one restoration near you, and in the meantime stop taking it so personally that I suggest this to you! And you then may begin to understand this entire subject better as well as the golf courses that have been through these projects.

Unitil you do that, like anyone else, your knowledge and understanding of restorations is always going to be necessarilly limited.

[T_MacWood]

I must be a real glutton for punishment....when ever questions arise about restoration, and in particular the historical accuracy of restorations, it degenerates into a breakdown of my personal shortcomings and my analytical weaknesess. Tough love.

[TEPaul]

"I must be a real glutton for punishment....when ever questions arise about restoration, and in particular the historical accuracy of restorations, it degenerates into a breakdown of my personal shortcomings and my analytical weaknesess."

You're never going to really get it Tom. This is a discussion group about golf architectural subjects, in this case restorations and the problems and solutions about such things as historical accuracy involving them, not about Tom MacWood and his personal shortcomings and analytical weaknesses. We all need to defend and support the logic of the things we say on here and the realities of some of the things we support and propose.

You seem to be condemning many of the processes of some accepted successful restorations. You're also the only one on here or elsewhere I know of who has it in for the Aronimink restoration! You don't seem to be willing to even consider what everyone else seems to think (certainly including a club's membership) so wouldn't you suppose some might seriously question both you and some of the things you say? And you also seem to be suggesting that good and comprehensive research is really all that matters.

That's simply not the case and you ought get around to admitting it eventually if you'd take the time to just get out there and see for yourself.

I can't see how that suggestion in edcuation and learning that getting out there can accomplish turns into some attack on you personally or on your analytical abilities. It's just a strong suggestion of something that would benefit your understanding of this entire subject.

If that kind of suggestion is some kind of personal attack, I don't know what to make of you.

And if you're talking about me calling you an arrogant and pompous jerk, well then that's something you deserve to hear on this public forum for calling my golf course one not deserving of being a candidate for a restoration.

That's not easy to hear anyway even from someone who knows my course really well (certainly it's not an opinion I've ever heard from anyone and many far more knowledgeable about restorations and golf architecture than you), but it's just plain unacceptable to me from a guy who's never even laid eyes on the course or apparently even the town and seems content to sit out there in his little dream world in Ohio and pontificate such statements and apparently to even refuse to listen to constructive suggestions without taking it personally. For that you deserve everything I said to you whether you consider it a personal attack or not!

[George Pazin]

I'm always hesitant to get involved in disagreements between 2 posters, both of whom I have a tremendous amount of respect for, but, this statement:

"It is also true that what is good for Gulph Mills or Medinah may not be good for Yale or GCGC. Not every golf course is a canidate for restoration."

does not necessarily mean that GM is not a candidate for restoration. TM has stated repeatedly that he thinks a Rees remodel of Medinah might be a good thing, as it might give the course some cohesive character. I think he's also advocated preservation of GCGC over restoration, and when I last questioned him about Yale, I think he even stated that preservation would have been preferrable to the attempted "restoration." He has also stated that there were hundreds if not thousands of courses built during the "Golden Age" that could indeed benefit from a complete remodel or overhaul.

The way I read these sentences is that each course is a unique situation, not that Gulph Mills is not a candidate for restoration.

Seems a shame to see you two arguing over each other styles rathering than seeing the tremendous amount of common ground that you share.

Hope everyone has a happier day today.

[Chris_Clouser]

Furniture can be restored.  Golf courses cannot.  

Sad to say, but it is true.  Even the best restoration efforts will not recreate the golf course as it originally was designed.  Grasses are different, green contours get lost, waterways change slightly, etc.  Sorry for the quick and biting reply, but it has been a bad day.  

When I try to think of the wonderful course I played this weekend (Kingsley), I get even more ticked that I'm in my office.  Which, ironically, has a nicely restored wooden desk in it.  

[T_MacWood]

George
That is exactly what meant with that comment, each case is unique....a pretty innocent comment if you ask me.

TE
I don't recall saying your course was not worthy of restoration...you might consider pulling an Emily Latella.

[TEPaul]

GeorgeP:

I appreciate your attempt at reconciliaton in the dispute between Tom MacWood and myself and particularly if I misunderstood his remark about GMGC. Perhaps I did but he reads these threads as much as you do particularly my responses to him and if I did misunderstand what he said about GMGC he could've had the sense and decency to say so himself rather than letting you do so.

I do very much appreciate that post of yours and your attempt at reconciliation, though. The fact is IF Tom MacWood is not  clear in what he's saying regarding what he feels on this subject or IF I'm not either I can see a misunderstanding developing---but if we are both clear and have been then I'm afraid we have some fundamental differences of opinion on this subject of restoration architecture.

I think I know how the restoration process and these restoration projects can work well regarding good classic architecture and I think I also know how and why they can't.

Putting together a good restoration plan to present to a membership is essential and really good research is essential to putting togther a great restoration plan!!

At that point you have a great plan in hand and then you put it on the table for the membership. How you sell it, how you present it, how you educate your membership to what you're trying to accomplish on the golf course and how you treat them in the process of doing those things is the second and equally important step in a good restoration. Obviously getting it done correctly once it's approved is vastly important too.

But Tom MacWood seems to basically disregard the membership of golf clubs in this entire restoration process, and I just know no one can do that if they truly want to get a great restoration out there on the ground and on a golf  course.

But maybe all Tom MacWood cares about is that first step---the essential research part of it. That's fine, I'm sure, I care very much about that step too because I went through that in spades and I still am on other courses but if that's all he cares about I just think he has some valuable but ultimately very limited influence and effect on getting really good restorations done and on the ground for the benefit of this great old architecture.

Do you disagree with that GeorgeP?