Ethics on renovating a historically signifigant course?

[ian]

Does the architect have any ethical responsibility to preserve a historically important course, or is it just a personal choice. We know that many of the golden-age architects rebuilt or renovated a lot of the original courses with little regard to theri predacessors work. Some made major changes to architect we would now clas as signifigant.

The ASGCA has nothing that talks about golf architectural history an ethics.


Some of us have seen the ASGCA code of ethics:

Ethical, responsible, professional behavior not from edict, but from a positive, inward force of the individual. The most effective influence toward a high ethical standard is positive, consistent, ethical actions in the practice of their profession by the members of the Society. The following articles express in general terms the professional conduct expedted of golf course architects:

I. The golf course architect shall exert every effort toward the preservation and protection of our natural resources and toward understanding the interaction of man's economic and social systems with those resources.

II. The golf course architect has a responsibility to reconcile and harmonize the requirements of the game of golf with man's needs, the natural systems and the natural environment.

III. The golf course architect furthers the welfare and advancement of his/her profession by constantly striving to provide the highest level of professional services.

IV. The golf course architect shall serve his/her client or employer with integrity, understanding, knowledge and creative ability and shall respond morally and ethically to social, political, economic and technological influences.

V. The golf course architect shall avoid unprofessional conduct and shall conform to the Guidelines for Professional Conduct of the American Society of Golf Course Architects.



So the ASGCA has no mention of preservation of historically signifigant courses. Granted this is hard to define, and they must be given some latitude on this, but still the preservation of important work is not listed.

Should they have something like:
The golf course architect shall exert every effort toward historical preservation of signifigant works of golf course architecture, for the betterment of the golf.


As an example: What if Ian Andrew (the "Butcher of Scarborough") renovated Garden City (he said he was a Travis expert ) bringing it up to 7,500 yards. In the process he changed a series of holes (18 or so) to find length, and prepare it for a hopeful bid to host the "Great Viagara Classic"


This course is one of the more important pieces of history in golf architecture. Would this, or more importantly should this be an ethical violation in the ASGCA?. At what point do we, as architects, have a responsibility to the history of the game? Again, I say that the line is very hand to place, and that could be the reason it doesn't exist.

There is no question that even the leading restoration people make occasional mistakes. I have made a few too. As Tom said in another post batting 1.000 is impossible. It can't be simply for removing or adding a bunker BUT is there a line that is missing and should be drawn?

(end of rant)

[Mike_Young]

Ian,
IMHO when one start speaking of Travis experts or any other expert of dead architects we have a problem.  IMHO being a dead architect expert is more of a marketing/sales issue than a talent.  One may enjoy or study the works of some of these dead guys but it should mainly be used to enhance his own particular body of work.  

With that said, if a club hires an architect and they approve of what he is to do and commission him to do it then there is no ethical issue,IMHO.  We may not agree or like the changes but it doesn't belong to us.  The biggest ethical issue I have with much of the dead architect stuff is the parading around of some of the dead architect societies as experts.  

I honestly believe the best architects are alive today and will therefore preserve and/or construct products that will evolve and be reworked by the architects of the future who should be better than the best of today.
I would venture to guess that in the golden age there was a higher rate of bad work to good work than there is today.  
Einstein once said "the secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources".....so I think we improve on the old not try to preserve it true to form...

East Lake comes to mind....many will say it was not a true Ross redo..but did Ross try to make it a redo of the one before him....I don't know but I do think it is a solid course today and will continue on that path in the future...
 
Sorry for the rant.....


Mike

[ian]

Mike,

Your point is taken, and I was looking for this reponse. I'm not sure if I have a valid point or I'm just too sensitive to change at certain courses. I obviously have a heavy history bias in my beliefs, but I am willing to conceed that I may be wrong on this though. Possibly I'm not, I honestly don't know, I simply posted how I fely tonight.

I hope you got my "Travis expert" comment as tongue firmly planted in cheek.

[RJ_Daley]

I. The golf course architect shall exert every effort toward the preservation and protection of our natural resources and toward understanding the interaction of man's economic and social systems with those resources.

II. The golf course architect has a responsibility to reconcile and harmonize the requirements of the game of golf with man's needs, the natural systems and the natural environment.

Well, I'm going to do this realising that I'll probably be sounding the class warfare siren once again.  But...

how about this:
I. The golf course architect shall exert every effort toward the preservation and protection of our natural resources and toward understanding the (RESPONSIBLE) interaction of SOCIETY'S [DELETEman'sDELETE] economic and social systems with those resources TO INCLUDE THE PRACTICE OF FISCAL CONSERVATION.

II. The golf course architect has a responsibility to reconcile and harmonize the requirements of the game of golf with SOCIETY'S [DELETEman'sDELETE] needs, the natural systems and the natural environment PRACTICING DUE DILLIGENCE IN THESE MATTERS.

But, as to your specific question of ethics of remodelling VS restoration of meritorious golf course architecture;  I sure as hell wouldn't want to be the one to declare which can be redone, and which has enduring architectural historic merit.

It seems like most of us seem to sense what historic venues have architectural merit, yet we can't really say with certainty how to go about preserving, improving or even restoring it to any particular point in its relevant historical past.  

[Mike_Young]

Ian,
I understood you Travis comment.
To use another quote and I don't know the author "To live a creative life, we must lose our fear of being wrong."
Many on this site will think I'm crazy to think these dead guys can be improved.....I just think you got to keep moving and yep...some stuff will get screwed up....and then it will be fixed to be srewed up again in the future but that is how evolution works...I think.

[ian]

RJ,

"I sure as hell wouldn't want to be the one to declare which can be redone, and which has enduring architectural historic merit."

Completely agree with your point.

There in lies the whole problem with my question (which I realized from the onset), but is that a good reason to ignore the importance of preservation altogether?

Mike,

I acknowledge that some modernizations of classical courses have brought on improvements. Some additions or evolutions have really made the course what they are now as opposed to what they really began as But are there not at least a few things that shouldn't change because they are far too important in retaining an understanding of our past?

[Mike_Young]

Ian,
I think there is a lot that shouldn't change.  But I think most are in the form of strategies and philosophies not in site specific dead architect features.  Ex: if modern cart traffic demands ingress and egress from the side of a green that was always approached form the front.  And this particular green had a continuous bunker on on each side.  Would it not be acceptable to keep the same strategy and create ingress and egress by splitting a bunker etc??? I say ok but others would x it.  Personally, I dislike cart paths but.....
IMHO we just complicate dead guys and micro study them too much....

[RJ_Daley]

Ian, take your example of the Manor Richelieu.  Is it currently functional in playability within the context of the modern game?  I know nothing about the course.  But, only guessing from the old photos you posted, it seems like there is at least a chance that the course is so archaic and out of touch with modern golf as it is played, or maintained, that it may not have any enduring merit to say it is a candidate for preservation VS a remodel.  If it is in a space that can't even be remodelled to any realistic semblance of decent golf, then perhaps there is a higher and best use for that land.

Did Strong practice any unique and enduring construction techinques or provide any golf strategic design that isn't a general copy of many others?  If he did so there, then I think an argument could at least be commenced.  But, if it is a mundane, typical old time course, now too short, too difficult to maintain and provide quality recreation, then heck with it...

[T_MacWood]

Ian
I wouldn't call an architect who redesigns or remodels a significant design unethical...perhaps unaware or historically insensative. I personally believe golf architects, as a group, have a responsability to preserve the most significant works of their profession...if they have no interest in preserving their own art, then there really is no hope.

They could add a clause to their code of ethics, as you suggested. IMO they should go a step further and actually identify a relatively small number of important designs that should be preserved and protected (within reason).

Why shouldn't they? If I were a member of a club or resort owner, and the ASCGA proclaimed that my golf course was an historically important design...I would be both proud and thrilled. The positive ramifications far out weigh any negative consequences.

In fact I would involve the ASGCA sister organizations in Europe, Australia and Japan. I think identification of important designs should be done on a worldwide basis.

I talked to members at Engineers and Hollywood, they really were surprised when explained to them what a historically significant design their golf course was. I'm certain those in charge of Manoir Richelieu had no clue either, hell a savvy GCAer like RJ has no clue about MR, why would some resort executive know?

On a related note:
There appears to be a general consensous that golf technology is out of hand--identifying, preserving and protecting important works of architecture, could add pressure and indirectly help rein in equipment.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom MacWood,

I agree completely with your first two paragraphs.  Well said.

Ian,

As a newly minted ASGCA member, I have sent your post to HQ.....You can expect to be added as a junior member to the bylaws committee.  Don't blame me, thats how these things work.  One timle, I went to the bathroom during a meeting, and came back both relieved and  Chair of the Membership committee.

When I have discussed the philosphy of these kinds of things, it strikes me that the ethics code must be broadly written, holding only to "universal truths" among projects.  One of these is the GCA obligation to provide his client the best service possible and work in his interest.  Everything else is secondary from an ethical and contractual standpoint.

Site specific questions like whether to remodel or restore shouldn't be part of that, just like an amendment to the Constitution is the wrong way to ban flag burning, if that is your desire.  Individual States should determine that, just as individual clubs should determine their fate.

A clause written too specifically could cause problems not intended.  Would a tenant to protect history and tradition have made the development of the Cayman course unethical?  

I am surprised that the first point there is about the environment. It was obviously added when the environment became a universal issue.  I don't think restoration has reached that point yet.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Tom MacWood,

While your idea is sound it misses an important segment of the golf world.  In house work.

I would venture to say that more alterations to golf courses have been done in house, without consulting an outside, independent architect, then alterations done with a consulting archictect.

So, to amend you suggestion, I think you have to include and incorporate the Green Superintendent's Associations as well.

[A_Clay_Man]

It seems odd that these aren't criteria for entry into the society.

And,

How is the architect suppose to honor and/or preserve, when the client doesn't want it?

[TEPaul]

Seems to me the ethical consideration of the membership of an organization like the ASCGA is to serve clients honestly and professionally. Would that include advice to preserve historically significant golf courses? Sure, why not, but if the ASGCA is going to put that into their by-laws, I'd like to see how. What kind of criteria are they going to come up with to recommend that on an architect by archtitect basis? Those who've asked what if the client doesn't want to do that have a good question there. Does that mean the ASGCA has some ethical responsiblity to great architecture to walk away? That would definitely be a stretch! More like dreaming actually.

There's no question at all that organizations like the ASGCA, the national and regional superintendents association, the USGA, and architect societies and such can have some impact but the most effective way of getting this kind of thing done is on a grass roots level and probably fairly regionally. Golf courses notice what's going on in their regions better than anything else. The reasons for that are obvious and the only way to get any club's attention and interest them in restoration or preservation is to get right into the clubs and the people who are directly responsible for how they're run and maintained and convince and persuade them to look at restoring or preserving their course. It doesn't just end there either. Somebody has to stick with it and take the entire process through planning, persuading the membership to do it and the process of executing it well and maintaining it properly into the future. The truth of all this is evidenced by some clubs who tried this type of thing without understanding it all and became disappointed how things turned out. There's no secret formula here that's just waiting to be discovered. It takes collaboration, the generating of pride and respect for what the course is and a well planned and executed architectural process generally followed by maintenance practices that may be quite different than in the decades previously. All this stuff is simply a series of fairly proven processes at this point and it just takes a lot of dedication, time and hard work on the part of the participants. There's no other way, unfortunately.

If there is show me a course that's done it some other way.

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Ian,

I would not want to empower the ASGCA members to oversee other architects that are doing work on historical, significant courses to determine if they are behaving properly.  If they came on my job I would have them thrown off, it is not their position to be enforcers.  Having said that I will go on record saying that I would not proceed on a significant golf course if the membership instructs me to make major changes, or changes that in my opinion would alter the master piece significantly, I don't think it is right and I think it would be a disservice to the profession and should mar my career for the long term.  

Mike Youngs comment "IMHO when one start speaking of Travis experts or any other expert of dead architects we have a problem.  IMHO being a dead architect expert is more of a marketing/sales issue than a talent", seems to be an extraordinary put down of people like Ron Forse and Jim Nagle who certainly trumphet their involvement in these courses in marketing their firm but apparently they have exhibited a very high level of talent in doing their work, and they have engaged in a very worthwhile aspect of golf course architecture.  This seems to be another example of the ASGCA's disrespect of the work these guys do, and further reinforces the perception  that the ASGCA believes these guys really are not golf course architects.  

And I am not exactly a dead architect expert, and I have attempted to secure a job on such a classical course, but can hardly get a look because of the success of guys like Forse, Pritchard, etc.  however I would not dismiss them and say they beat me on a job because of their marketing, they have had solid success at what they do, and I jsut have to find some way to get such a course in the right situation to trust my background, and my work ethic over someone like them.  It is a part of the great contest we are all engaged in, and in the end I know I will land one of these and I know it will be successful and I can assure you the membership will not be successful in dictating changes to me that in my opinion will compromise the original work.  It is just a personal choice one must make without having oversight from a society.

[Tom_Doak]

Why do I have the sickening feeling that if the ASGCA were to produce a list of courses that shouldn't be touched, it would focus on:

a)  their own works, and
b)  courses that non-ASGCA members are working on?

[Jeff:  Just kidding, unless it happens.]

I DO think the society should do more to consider preserving certain courses ... even if it were just for the architects to nominate one or two of their own designs that should not be touched by future generations.  Wouldn't it be interesting to know which courses the great masters would have picked?

[TEPaul]

Kelly:

Are you saying the ASGCA doesn't recognize architects who concentrate on restorations like Forse and Nagel? That must mean the ASGCA doesn't really recognize restorations. It sounds like that organization is not much more than a trade group to enhance and promote new construction architects----period!

[Paul_Turner]

Questions for the architects:

I'd imagine that pure "restoration" is the easiest type of project, because it involves less creativity.  Convincing the members and research being the most improtant aspects.

Whereas a successful remodelling of a course is the much harder.  When I write remodel, I'm thinking of substantial changes.  I suppose the test of time is the only way to tell if a remodel job was successful.

I disagree that the best architects are working today and that there were more bad courses in the old days.  That's certainly not the case in GBI...even the old courses on dull land are generally far better than the new.

The old architects are always going to be revered more because they were the pioneers.  And what might seem obvious now, wasn't obvious in 1910!

[Robert Thompson]

Mike and co: I don't actually see the problem with someone saying they have a degree of knowledge and expertise on a specific architect, as long as that is the actual truth.
What we are really saying is that some architects bill themselves as "dead architect experts," when they really have little experience in the area.
If a course wants to do a faithful restoration, wouldn't it benefit them to seek out the architect who best knows the work of the original designer? I think this can be important because in places where historical documentation is missing, a knowledgeable designer can probably make a careful, well considered guess at what was originally there.
Far too often, a renovating architect simply doesn't care what was there -- we've all seen it -- a hole with features that don't resemble anything else on a course.
There are legitimate architects with a sympathy and expertise in the work of specific designers. There are also those who will say they are experts just to get work. It is up to a smart club committee to decide the difference.

Robert

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Robert Thompson: "What we are really saying is that some architects bill themselves as "dead architect experts," when they really have little experience in the area."

There is plenty of sharp criticisms regarding Rees, Fazio, etc., I have done my part.  Now Mike and Robert, of whom are you speaking?

Paul Turner:

The aspect of research and membership interaction on restoration projects may be more difficult than renovation or new design.  Fortunately in my new design work I have largely been left to myself during the design and constrcution phases, renovation work there is much more interaction with members but it has been pleasurable, restoration, that could be more intense and and if you really are convinced that the original design is of the highest order than the interaction with a trigger happy membership could make the design process much more intense as compared to new or renovation.  I appreciate you comments regarding the old architects as compared to the new architects like myself who you think suck  , I have been heavy into listening to my old Zepplin CD's and in doing so have concluded there has been no better rock and roll produced since then.  I am especially pleased with the meld between the songs on Led Zepplin 1, I mean the transition from Black Forest to Communication Breakdown is a piece of art!

[Willie_Dow]

Ian

My read on what you are saying is that historical preservation will include certain forms of evolution.

As Mel Lucas wrote me in a letter:  "I will take a stance on restoration as a purist.  The manner in which one goes about restoration is one of a careful manual approach on the green side face of bunkers.  To approach this work one must envision that of an oil painting on an old canvas.  What is observed at first glance is the need to take away some of the dried breaking and pealing oils so as to renew these fragile layers that weaken the adjoining paint, as is the case with the inability of the grass to hold a person trying to hit a shot from the precarious position on the edge of a bunker.  However, when one takes these pealing parts off one becomes surprised to find that an original is underneath this layer.  Thus the labour intensive search to remove the facade that covers the true beauty of the original work."

I guess the question here becomes one of where is the best original work found that lends itself to the best golf course architecture for the present day golfer.

Willie

[Paul_Turner]

Kelly

Why are you yanks so obsessed with Led Zep  Rip off band who never credited their sources .  We got over that dinosaur rock ages ago!

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Now we're off topic but I don't care.  Enlighten me Paul.  they clamed a blues/Willie Dixon influenced.  Who did they rip off?  This better be good.

[Paul_Turner]

They originally didn't credit anyone and I believe they were taken to court by Dixon.  

"Whole Lotta Love", their anthem, is a straight lift. I remember hearing the Muddy Waters version for the first time, and thinking bloody hell, Led Zep really are a bunch of wankers

[Mike_Cirba]

Ian

My read on what you are saying is that historical preservation will include certain forms of evolution.

As Mel Lucas wrote me in a letter:  "I will take a stance on restoration as a purist.  The manner in which one goes about restoration is one of a careful manual approach on the green side face of bunkers.  To approach this work one must envision that of an oil painting on an old canvas.  What is observed at first glance is the need to take away some of the dried breaking and pealing oils so as to renew these fragile layers that weaken the adjoining paint, as is the case with the inability of the grass to hold a person trying to hit a shot from the precarious position on the edge of a bunker.  However, when one takes these pealing parts off one becomes surprised to find that an original is underneath this layer.  Thus the labour intensive search to remove the facade that covers the true beauty of the original work."

Willie

Bill;

Yes, that's exactly what was done at Merion, right?    

[JNagle]

"I'd imagine that pure "restoration" is the easiest type of project, because it involves less creativity.  Convincing the members and research being the most improtant aspects."

Paul, you are correct that research is a large part of a resotration project but I beg to differ that creativity is lacking.  It takes creativity to combine a large amount of information and put it together for the finished project, especially if what you are working on does not exist in the present.  The restoration of bunkers or the reconstruction of existing bunkers in new locations is an exacting process.  The research involved in creating the steps to get to construction involve photo research and archival searches, archeology, reading history on the various clubs, knowing that particular site (every course is not the same even though the name may be), knowing the era that the particular course was designed (each architect evolved), who was the construction foreman (such as Hatch vs. McGovern), knowing the demands of the current membership. We cannot also forget, if the restoration architect himself does not do the shaping, who is going to handle construction. Any old Joe on a dozer is not going to get the job done.  All of this before shovel hits dirt.  

Once in the field it is not a matter of just painting lines.  We have been told of architects who do not even lift an eye prior to approving a bunker then move on.  Detail must be paid to each slope, elevation, undulation and sand line.  Afterall the goal is to create something that looks like the original features and not just like any other course.  Working of a Flynn course like Philmont or Concord (more Ross-like than Flynn) is different than working on Philadelphia C.C. or Mannie's.  Working on teen's Ross is different than working on late 20's Ross.  Look at Tillie's work at Newport vs. San Fran. the list goes on.  It takes creativity to discern and not let one of the other courses creep into the course an architect may be working on.

The above is just for bunkers.  Things become even more difficult when rebuilding a green to match exsiting "classic" greens.  

Many people criticized as being or calling themselves "experts", of a dead architect, may in fact not be doing the self promotion, it may be others referring to them as such.  If an architect has an ability to differentiate styles and pull off the various looks it is a credit to his hard work and creativity and also the work of the contractor and shaper.  

One aspect of restoration that many do not think about, as stated by a contributing architect is "with restoration one must check his ego at the door".  Something that may cloud many architects from wanting to restore a course, they would prefer to "leave their mark"