Restoration: Bunk or not?

[Forrest Richardson]

Sorry about the typos, but I am truly hurt by Tom's cutting remarks.

Willie — I do not buy the notion that anyone can literally "restore". Restoration is mostly not a good idea. What golf needs is a balance of old ideas combined with new ideas. Golf needs to be shaken up. Restoration, in its pure sense, will kill the spirit of new architects and all who love of the ever-changing canvas we play upon. I also have made some good points that you cannot "estore" to any degree of accuracy. Tom Doak did a wonderful job of changing the bunkers at The Valley Cklub, but with all of the other changes there his bunkers do not play, nor do the holes play, like they did originally. he made them better and he opted to link them to the past — great. But his terrific wisdom also made them better, probably, than they were originally. This is not true restoration — it is change. I applaud it. By the way, while he was there he could have improved some holes and I wish the cloub would have allowed it. My opinion.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Forrest Richardson,


I think the single most important factor in the mind of the architect has to be:

INTENT coupled with HONESTY

[T_MacWood]

Forrest
To be honest I have no idea what you have studied and what you haven't studied. I am conservative by nature and cringe at anyone saying change for the sake of change is good - to me that seems to be a ludicrous notion with tragic possibilities. I'm all for creativity and originality but from my experience the most original and creative have a strong foundation in the past. In my mind preserving and restoring the most creative and original works promotes new creative and original artists.

If you have an attitude of new holds barred pretty soon you destroy the designs that will help guide and inspire new artists. It would be like stating "change is good lets blow up the Louvre" or "changes is good lets burn down Katsura and start over."

As Darwin said about the 9th at St. Andrews, no doubt it can be improved, but to alter it would not only insult tradition, a tradition that has endurred, but more importantly ruin the ballance and brillance of the golf course. It is easy for a student of golf architecture to analyze the 17th, 14th or 11th, but how many study the 9th, its weaknesses, and why it is perfectly placed.

I find it interesting that Simpson and Darwin went out of their way to praise bad or imperfect golf holes. Perhaps the same holes that you and Tom Doak would like to improve at the Valley Club.

[Forrest Richardson]

Tom,

You make good points. Can you ever do it, though, without resorting to comparing a golf course to a building?

[Forrest Richardson]

Patrick,

I think you have hit on a really important element. But the most important factor is to create a lush playground for the mind — if that involves a link to the past, even restoration, then great...go for it. But if the site and condition calls for something else, best go for that. I suppose that is honesty, right?

[T_MacWood]

I consider the Louvre a repository for great paintings, not a great building, and Katsura is an old garden.

I agree with your premise that restoration is an abused term. Bethapge, Aronimink and Olympia Fields are not restorations in my view. But I don't think the concept of preserving, protecting or restoring is an unrealistic or ill advised one.

[Forrest Richardson]

I'm only familiar with the garden of Katsura. I've never been there. I think I may have flown over it at 30,000-ft. But I take the position that most gardens can and should change as a natural part of their growth — which includes tinkering. In the case of such a famous garden, care should be taken to uphold the ideals of the original forms. It may well be that it SHOULD always be restored, and never changed.

It is obviously easier to truly restore a garden than it is a golf course. Depends of course on the size of the garden. Katsura, I believe, is quite small. To created detailed plans would be significantly easier and more common than finding such detailed as-built plans of a golf course. There are some terrific as-built plans of Oakmont, for example, but they are circa 2001 — and guess what? They show a golf course changed hundreds of times. Are there any super accurate plans/records of classic courses? No. There are super accurate only of classic courses in their modern day state.

The Louvre is a building which is a vault for great works. I would never suggest we delete it or its holdings. It is there for that purpose and that purpose primarily. A golf course is not there for the sole purpose of housing golf holes as if museum-ed for ever. (By the way, some good friends of mine were a part of the architectural team which remodeled the Louvre and they did a great job as I can tell.)

Let me pose this question, Tom:  If it IS possible to truly restore a golf course using old plans and records, then couldn't we conclude that such plans and records are, in and of themselves, enough of a record for us to cherish. Do we always need to attempt to preserve the actual golf course itself? Of course, my position is that we can't accomplish this in the field as too much will change. hence "restoration" is a bunk term which needs to be re-thought.

Again, the heart of my question to GCA-ers is whether we are being honest when we talk of "restoration". I say "no" with very few exceptions. Most all of what we have done to golf courses, and will do, is change them. The change we refer to as "restoration" is change which many times is falsely communicated as being "authentic" when in fact it is just using old and classic looks, most all of which are just attached to the course by approximating and borrowing from a kit of parts.

[TEPaul]

Again, it seems pretty fruitless to me for any of us to spend time on here discussing and arguing over exactly what the meaning of some word is.

At my course, we planned to do a restoration of our Ross course and to call it a restoration but the membership didn't seem to like the sound of the term "restoration" so we called our project an "improvement" but it really didn't matter at all because we did exactly the same thing as we planned to when we called it a "restoration" in the first place.

So in many ways the terms used are sort of meaningless, except regarding perception, but this remark by Brad Klein pretty much encapsulates the actual process of architectural restoration to me;

"Is restoration easy? Hell no, it requires thought, study, decision-making, interpretation. But it also requires a serious study of architecture tradition, and to dismiss that is really kind of casual."

Interpretation, if that's truly necessary, following a serious study of the architectural tradition of your golf course is the key idea to me. It has to be that way or one might restore something of even a great architect that never worked well in the first place, as well as the fact there're certain things that've come to pass that can actually make great old architecture even better than it ever was at its best back then. Elements involving agronomy particularly are such things.

Tom MacWood might say he doesn't view a course like Aronimink as a real restoration and perhaps it isn't in a technical sense. Ron Prichard went to great lengths to explain the need for certain "interpretation" to make Aronimink play better with today's game than it would have if he exactly recreated what Ross (or probably McGovern did there in the late 1920s or mid 1930s).

The question then becomes does Aronimink play better with its recent "Ross restoration" given a certain amount of interpretation in the spirit and tradition of Ross than it would today if it was more exactly recreated to what it was back then?

In my mind there is no question that it's better today in every way--playability, look, everything. And the fact that so many people, which includes plenty of so-called architectural purists who've seen and played the course with its recent restoration seem to feel that, is truly the proof of the pudding.

The real point here and the message of it is that Aronimink and Prichard tried as best as they knew how to both recreate what Donald Ross did architecturally on that golf course and at the same time make it work as well as it could with today's game.

The message, the perception and the central theme of it was DONALD ROSS and not something new and different from a Dick Wilson, Tom or George Fazio, Robert Trent Jones or Ron Prichard! And that's a very important perception and message to send out. The fact that Jack Nicklaus didn't seem to realize or understand that says nothing negative at all about Aronimink's recent Ross restoration, in my opinion. And what Aronimink has just done is about as good an example as can be found of a project dedicated to wiping away the evidence of what had become a redesigned golf course and returning it to Ross's design intent.  

[ginger1]

I have been exposed to the work of Ron Pritchard in my work in the golf course remodeling business. I have seen many self-annoited restoration experts but none have the vision to see what was in place before aggresive green chairman and ego dysfunctional architects "sharpened up" the original features. Mr. Pritchard has the ability to think like the original architect, check out the Seth Raynor restoration at Wanumetomony in Rhode Island to see a non-Ross restoration.    His construction plans are true works of art. Nobody can interpret on paper what he wants in place like Ron Pritchard.   Combine Mr. Pritchard with an experienced golf shaper and you have a happy client.

[TEPaul]

Ginger:

What you just said is the truth of it--I completely agree with you. If a club doing a restoration with Prichard can contract a really good shaper Ron can communicate with and have some faith in doing what he wants when he isn't on site the club is going to get a real good restoration project and product. But just like any other phase of restoration architecture the club just can't assume that any or all shapers are interchangeable when it comes to the finished product--far, far from it in fact.

It all gets back to the disagreement I have with Pat Mucci on this sort of stuff. Pat seems to think that the total responsibility rests with the club. In a way it does provided they understand upfront that not all architects or shapers and restoration crews are interchangeable. A golf club can ask for the exact same thing of different architects, shapers and crews and even in minute detail and the products still have the potential of turning out different--sometimes real different.

The best way to avoid this--the only way really, is for the club to just get out there and see what various architects, shapers and crews have done previous. For some reasons some clubs assume they're the first to be going through this process so they sometimes go through it in a bit of a vacuum of understanding despite how hard they may try to do the right thing and that's always a perscription for potential problems and dissatisfaction.

Communication, collaboration and education is the name of the game in restoration architecture. It just ain't as simple as most people think. And it sure isn't as simple as a lot of so-called architectural purists think. I used to think it was but the more one learns the more one understands that's not reality.

[T_MacWood]

Forrest
As Japanese gardens go--I believe Katsura is pretty large. It is my understanding that one of the guiding principals of Japanese garden art is preservation. The scene you can see today is very similar to the scene of 200 or 300 years ago.

It seems to me that the purpose of the Louvre and other art museums is two fold. First to allow lovers of art to view and enjoy great works of art. But is also a place for young artists to study and appreaciate the methods of the past.

Oakmont has changed countless times, Pinehurst #2 was altered often, as was Myopia--all three were more or less labratories of architecture for a single architect. No one is claiming a golf course can not change--there are numerous examples of golf courses being improved. But as an admirer of great achitecture, when Fownes, Ross or Leeds leaves us an architectural masterpiece, and it has been for the most part preserved for many decades following their death, I don't want to see RTJ or Wilson or Forrest R tell us they can do it better, they can improve these courses, and change is good. Leave it alone for architects of the future to appreciate and to study. Build your own damn architectural experiment. Like the Louvre I see the purpose of Merion, Cypress Point and NGLA as two fold--the golfing pleasure of their membership and as great designs to be studied by future generations.

Regarding the idea of restoration being bunk. Obviously you can not restore a golf course EXACTLY to some date in the past--and not every golf course should be a canidate for restoration. But depending on the golf course it can be restored to a very close approximation of its architectural high point. IMO the best restorations are done in house--slowly and deliberately without the assistance of an architect (or minor assistance). I agree with your point about courses being altered or damaged in the name of restoration--I have voiced concerns with what has happened at Bethpage, Hollywood and other courses because it is my opinion unnecessary changes were made to very important designs.

The problem I have with your logic is that you seem to be saying it is impossible re-establish an exact copy (so restoration is futile) and that change is good. I understand your concern with shoddy restoration, but I don't understand your attitude that anything goes if we think we can improve an important golf course. Maybe you point of view is true with 95% of golf courses, but this site is about the other 5% and we should do everything we can to preserve and protect those courses.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

I couldn't agree more with your last post. I don't know whether it's 5% or what it is but I think too that certain courses have gotten to that point in their history where they not only deserve really accurate restoration if something went awry but certainly preservation if nothing has gone awry. It does get to be problematic and complicated,though, when some of that really great architecture and some of those really great courses hold tournaments like the US Open--or try to.

[michael_j_fay]

Forrest:

Horsefeathers:

"but we do this in the modern time and we are better with our own creativity and zest".

I would have loved to be able to curtail the "own creativity and zest" of the army of bad Architects that worked on Ross courses over the years. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent undoing this "creativity and zest".

Why do Architects insist on changing old classic golf courses yet shy away from the crappy courses that were created in the 50's. 60's and 70's? Simple, an Architect gets no notice for fixing a course of no reputataion.

I no not one person that says don't design a course this or that way. If you have a blank canvas do what you will. I'll play the course at least once. If I like it I'll go back. If not, well that is what makes ballgames.

The essence is that the Masters of Design only did so much work. Do you really feel that that work should be sprinkeled with the work of an uninitiated? If you do you really should not be in the business.

[Forrest Richardson]

The arrows are coming and I am ducking. But I'll respond anyway.

1. I've never said the idea of "restoration" is ill-advised; only that in its literal sense it is mostly impossible.

2. I absolutely support the careful and thoughtful "interpretation" of classic courses, especially those that are so well preserved already and also those that are so worldly admired.

3. I do not think plans and aerials and written accounts can truly put a golf course back to an exact point in time — and the fact that it may get restored only puts it to a specific era, not what it was after the day it opened. Yes golfers believe this many times; thinking they are playing nearly exactly as it was.

4. Why shouldn't we discuss the terminology of golf architecture? Our language is important and so are written accounts.

(Observation: TEPaul's ascertion that this is a useless discussion means he only writes 600 words instead of 900!)

5. Future generations of golfers will benefit from a balanced approach to golf architecture in today's world. Existing courses are part of the canvas of designers — and really no canvas is totally blank as there are always restraints which are part of the fun and charm. If a course may be improved and "interpretation" made that will bring old looks and strategies into the holes — and this is right — then it should be done. But also, if there are new ideas and improvements and even daring designs that are right, then these should at least be welcomed with open minds.

6. Re-read No. 2 above.

7. Golf courses are living, breathing entities. They are not museums, although some are nearly such as they have been so greatly preserved that they are wonderful to visit and learn from. Most all of these, however, have been "interpretaed", not "restored". Perhaps all of them. The pictures on the walls of the locker rooms are the better history lessons as these give us a better record of what was there than the ground itself.

8. Regarding the 95% and 5% comment, I find this "talking down" to the world of golf a very disappointing feeling among posters here. Our role should not be to curl up around our collective fireplaces and never venture out. We need to embrace the uninformed and the casual golfer and bring them into our thoughts. We need to show them good, bad and ugly. There may always be a trend to discuss the 5%, but this does not mean we tune out or elevate ourselves.

9. Uninitiated? Hummmm. I am not wild about some of the changes to The Old Course, but I would hardly call the men who spent time "sprinkeling" their thought across it "uninitiated." Many Ross courses have been changed, and many not for the better. Fortunately, some have been changed, and some for the better. There is some great Ross writing and imagery. This, together with the mostly-preserved courses, are fine with me. A student can find out all he wants about Ross — much more than most classic era architects.

Thank you all for your comments and thoughts. I will await the next volley of arrows.

[TEPaul]

Forrest:

I don't think this is a useless discussion at all just that constant nitpicking over various words is to me--and I really love words and terms. A really good restoration under any other name is still a really good restoration. I think it's important to talk about what a really good restoration is given the necessities of today's golf not just what it's called.

And about the 95% vs 5%--I don't see anything wrong with categorizing it that way. Probably not much more than 5% of American architecture is worth restoring anyway. That's seems to be the way Tom Doak feels about it anyway.

And as far as some architects being good restorers and others not--frankly I really don't think it's all that hard to tell the difference anymore--at least I don't think it is for me. I believe I can sense in about one minute if any architect is really interested in the old classic style architecture and restoring it and if he really isn't.

That's what was so interesting about listening to Tom Fazio speak about it in a restoration forum. He doesn't even pretend to be particularly interested in restoration. He even mentioned he swore 25 years ago he'd never do it again since he lost so much money doing restoration with his uncle. That's why I think an architect like that should stick to what he likes, knows and is very good at--new course construction.

[michael_j_fay]

So this has been reduced to a discussion of semantics. No you cannot completely restore a golf course. If you restore it to a time period it is changing the golf course.

If you want and have the talent you can restore a course to nearly its beginnings. If you work real hard you can return it to a time period. In either case you are changing the course. If you can return the continuity of style and design you have probably succeeded at doing something very good, but Forrest does not call this "restoration".

Well, Forrest, I live in the burgh of West Hartford, CT, the home of Noah Webster. Upon consultation with his dictionary, I find the return to style and design to conform with the definition of restoration.

As for the creativity and zest, put a sock in it. Destruction of classic golf courses by those who have never dione any work of note is desecretion and egotism of the nth degree.

[Forrest Richardson]

It's not "restoration" unless you can somehow prove to me that something is being "restored". When you restore an ideal or a style, that is, as someone pointed out, "interpretation" to a classic style. When John Doe architect, who let's say is very good at knowing classic styles and is a great student of a particular architect, attacks a course he is changing it as if he were the original architrect, maybe in some areas almost exactly. But in most areas, he's just making changes based on a language that the original architect left behind.

And that is similar to building re-created Five and Diners with signage and details which evoke the original. Cool, very cool. But we only need so many in my view.

[Forrest Richardson]

Left sock or right sock?

[TEPaul]

Forrest:

From the looks of things on this thread it doesn't just seem to be a 'volley of arrows' as you were expecting it seems to be more like cruise missiles and a squadron of F-16s. I think it's a pretty good subject when it deals with just architecture and not necessarily what it's called. And no, I really don't want to parse the differences or similarities in meaning between arrows and cruise missiles---all I know is both fall from the sky and both can sort of smart if they hit you.  

[michael_j_fay]

As I said it has become semantics.

Honestly, Forrest, do you think that we should encourage the work of green chairmen and fledgling Architects on the courses of the Masters?

There are a lot of Picasso's, Renoirs and Monets, should we decide the lesser works and restyle the other canvasses?

There are thousands of crappy golf courses to fix. Fix them and leave those that were designed by people who actually knew what they were doing alone.

You have been walking the fine line of intellectual dishonesty from the beginning of this thread. Now it is time to fish or cut bait. Do you think that the Green Chairman at your course should be allowed to say renovate Merion? If your answer is no, then the thread is moot. If your answer is yes, I can recommend spas for people who are deeply disturbed.

[TEPaul]

"I can recommend spas for people who are deeply disturbed."

michael j fay:

I thought spas were for people who drank too much or were too fat. Sanitoriums are for people who are deeply disturbed. And if someone was so disturbed that they didn't care for any attempt at remediation in a sanitorium they could always move to New York or New Jersey and feel right at home. Pat Mucci lives in New Jersey and frequents New York, BTW--and one can hardly get more deeply disturbed than Patrick!  
 
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

In your response to Ginger,
You conveniently left out the critical if not vital ingredient.

A knowledgeable leader with vision.

That's what makes the difference.

Brad Klein,

It was my understanding that there was no committee at Seminole.

[Forrest Richardson]

I began with the following: "Golf course architecture is about designs, holes, conditions, edges, roughness, plant growth and death, changes in terrain, personal influences, green committees, players gripes, preparations for tournaments, changes due to equipment, changes due to the environment, owners wishes, etc. — these affects are what makes the game so interesting. In my view we spend far too much time worrying about "restoring" and too little time finding the new blood; the new frontiers; and, of course, the appropriate links to the past."

This was also written in context of the idea that it remains a problem for us to use the word "restoration" when we really are talking about change — and in the case of most GCA-ers, this change (what they might call "restoration") is the kind of change they embrace, which is to say, change to a style and influence they THINK the original architect may have wanted.

I'll fish, thank you. I detest cutting bait and would rather drink vodka over lake ice and fish without any bait. In fact, I once got tired of cutting bait and simply hooked a lure to my line — viola! Caught the best walleye of the day.

Michael, I do not expect to win this debate with you. Especially over use of the word. I have never suggested it is good to have a green committee or chairman redesign. But it is a reality. It is part of golf. As for having a handle on who knew what they were doing and who didn't, I applaud your mastering this for all of us. That is quite an accomplishment. I'd suggest that you write a book so we can all learn from your thesis on this subject. I'll put a copy away for my daughter so in 60 years she can read it and see how your 2003 opinions stack up.

Of course, by that time, she will have just completed her latest "restoration" of a Fazio course — maybe even a "restoration" of a Fazio "restoration" of a Golden Age architrect's work which had been "restored" by some well-regarded "restoration expert" who "restored" this early work which had already been "restored" by several others, including the green chairman. The good news is that she will have lots of photos, plans, records, the entire digital content of GCA and your book alerting her of the tragedy inflicted by those you deem un-masters.

[ForkaB]

Forrest

Hang in there.  I fought this fight a few years ago on this and won.  Even Tom MacWood had to concede then that some "renovations" of great courses led to better venues. You only need to go to the "Ross Flashed Bunker" thread to see that even with some of the leading Ross scholars and admirers and both of the Duelling Doyens involved, NOBODY has a clue as to how the greens at Pinehurst #2 came to be what they are!--we'll, actually each of them pretend to have a clue, but each of their clues is completely different......

So if, for example, you wanted to restore P#2's greens to Ross's "original intent", or whatever, what would you do?  Anybody?

[Forrest Richardson]

While you debate this and trash me I'll be headed to play golf. Enjoy.