Having lived through a major project at Seawane and having seen the results of a major project at Engineers I've been thinking about restoration projects generally. Given the current discussions on other threads I found it appropriate to offer this brief essay to constructively focus a discussion on what is likely the most important golf course architectural issue facing classic courses existing in the modern world.
"An Essay on Current Restoration Issues" by Jason K. Blasberg:
“Pure Restoration” vs. “Re-Design” and “Restoration Attempts”:
The phrase "Re-Design" has been used to criticize recent restoration projects and it has been used in contrast to what I’ll call a "Pure Restoration." The following explores these concepts in the context of the author’s view of the fundamental nature of architecturally sound golf courses. In the interests of full disclosure this author believes that it is practically impossible to perform a “Pure Restoration” but rather I insist that what can be performed is a “Restoration Attempt,” which I firmly endorse and consider to be entirely different from “Re-Design” which should be avoided entirely with sound designs.
Some defintions:
A “Re-Design” is the fundamental altering of course design and design elements. It necessarily requires changes in routing, angles of play, the reconstruction of greens and green sites. In short, if one played a “Re-Designed” golf course they would hardly recognize it from its former self.
At the opposite end of the spectrum is a “Pure Restoration” which is the process of returning a golf course to it’s original state as exactly as possible. It adds no bunkers if they weren’t originally there, removes no original bunkers and very seldom if ever moves bunker locations. It does not lengthen a course, it does not permit trees to grow and it does not plant trees where they weren’t. It does not move tee locations and it certainly never alters a putting surface. If today one played a course designed in 1917 that went through a Pure Restoration, everything within the confines of the course would be nearly the same as in 1917.
A “Restoration Attempt” lies somewhere between a Re-Design and a Pure Restoration, although it is far closer to the Pure Restoration end of the spectrum. It is a restoration consistent with the original design in appearance, strategy, and playability. It takes license, however, with certain design elements because it must consider the course in the context of the Modern world with, among other things, its current club and course maintenance technology. It accounts for property restrictions and membership preferences. It also requires more thought from the restoring architect.
When doing a Restoration Attempt the restoring architect should obtain and study as much historical data as possible. In this process he should consider how the course likely played given the time when it opened. For instance, he must try to understand which hazards were dominant in those days, which were secondary, which were window dressing? He must then apply that to what's on the ground in front of him and what is possible given current property restrictions and/or current budgetary restrictions and/or current membership priorities and preferences.
The result will never be a Pure Restoration nor should it be in my opinion. What it should be is a thoughtful attempt to get as close as one can to the design architect's intent (to the best it can be discerned) given the current environment in which this living thing of a golf course exists.
Results will vary and modern architects will necessarily leave their imprint on a course because they necessarily bring to any project their perspective. The issue becomes one of degree and respect for the design architect’s style and intent. This is not Re-Design.
Golf Courses as Living vs. Static
There are at least two fundamentally different views of what a sound golf course is and I will call one view (my view) the “Living View” and the other the “Static View.”
The Static View believes that there is a point in time when a course reaches a certain state worth preserving and it believer further that that state should be protected for all time. When it has been changed it should be restored to its historic state . . . the "Static" state. Thus, I understand this view to encourage restorations that are a virtual roll back of time to this Static state.
The “Living View,” however, is one that considers every course a living thing, dynamic at birth and evolving in life long after the life of the design architect expires.
For instance, why is it that modern architects continually return to the courses they have designed or to courses where they are the consulting architects? And, why is it that they sometimes do this to watch tournament play? They do it because courses evolve over time and in the context of the world around them.
The Living View of Course Restoration.
In Restoration Attempts aerial photos are crucial to understanding tree patterns, green sizes and bunker placements. Also, sometimes tees get shifted around which change angles of play which can be well understood by aerial photography.
However, some design elements do not survive the evolution of the game. For instance, original bunker placements often make no sense given today's game, so they need to be moved or removed. Does it make sense, for example, to have strategic fairway bunkers requiring only 220 yard carry from the back tee markers? Sometimes hard choices must be made. Should tees be moved back or the bunkers moved forward? Or should outdated design features be left even though practically they do nothing to advance the architectural intent?
Then there is the issue of adding bunkers where there were none originally. This is a more invasive decision and must be made carefully; however, I advocate such additions where they make sense strategically. For instance, modern equipment has rendered many doglegs impotent because players hit the ball so high and far that the inside corners are often no longer a challenge, either because the trees that were and are there can be carried or the corner itself can be negotiated and the equivalent open angle to the green can be obtained by going down the inside of the hole whereas one using the equipment of the 20s or 30s had to play to the outside of the dogleg to obtain the better angle to the green. In these instances bunker additions in the primary landing areas can make the player think about his tee shot and club selection in a way similar to the way the decisions had to be made many years ago.
The issue of re-contouring greens is likely the most invasive technique used in a Restoration Attempt and requires the most thought and will always be the greatest subject of criticism for the restoring architect. Given modern green speeds, however, re-contouring is sometimes required. This maybe to add pin placements for tournament play and/or to allow greater playability when original pin placements become unplayable.
The Living View of restoration permits and actually encourages these alterations, it does not bind the hands of the restoring architect, rather, it guides him in principle but gives him the ability and responsibility to bring his perspective to the project. That is not to say that the Living View lets the restoration architect off easy, rather it places upon him a greater burden, the burden of responsibility.
A Pure Restoration, in contrast, dictates most every decision the restoring architect makes. “See, it’s all here in this 1922 aerial photograph” the Pure Restoration architect could explain. "These weren’t my decisions; they were the decisions of Herbert Strong!"
In conclusion, sound golf course architecture is about making the player make choices and execute shots. If a Restoration Attempt restores the thought required to play a hole but alters certain original design elements that have otherwise been rendered moot over time or become unplayable it actually does more to restore the original design intentions than a Pure Restoration ever could.
Jason K. Blasberg