Could restoration be a "passing fad"?

[Paul Richards]

In an earlier thread, I mentioned that a friend told me the
master-plan chairman at his club said that all of this course
restoration was just a "passing fad."  

Does anyone here believe that restoration of classic courses
will go the way of the hula-hoop?

[Brad Klein]

Paul, would you rather see a baseball game at Wrigley Field or Comiskey Park?

Why are the building retro-ballparks these days (Camden Yards, Coors Field, 3Com) and tearing down the modernist bemoths in Cincinnati, Pittsburgh and Houston?

Why is restoration hardware such a booming busy, as is the entire antiques trade these days for home decorating.

The real passing fad is mdernism. Restoration is good business, for golf courses as well as a form of unique branding and marketing. Not only is it superior golf; it's also better identity formation and member recruitment.

[TEPaul]

I doubt it! Once real works of art get discovered in the attic and restored I do not know of a single instance where those restored works of art have been put back up in the attic and I doubt they ever will be again.

What we'll probably end up with many decades from now is at least two, and maybe more, distinct styles in architecture and the classic look and playability will definitely be one of them.

Too much has gone into classic restoration already in the last 10-15 years to ever again corrupt it as it had been in the previous 50+ years! I don't think it will ever go through something like that again!

[Jeff Mingay]

Most golfers who have taken the time to study the history and evolution of classic golf courses come to learn that these courses were far more interesting (and attractive) in their original forms than in their evolved conditions. That's simple reason why so many classic courses are being restored these days.

Brad's analogy makes a lot of sense. Would you rather watch a baseball game at the old Kingdome in Seattle or at Safeco Field? I think most people would choose Safeco, just as the members of Aronomink, for example, have decided Donald Ross' original design there would be more interesting to play for all than the evolved layout tinkered with by Nature, Robert Trent Jones and others.

[brad_miller]

Have thought of the baseball stadium analogy before, it makes great sense, maybe the best way to explain it to the average club member. Where would you rather play of watch a game, Camden Yards or Shea Stadium or the old thankfully gone midwestern astro turf ugly stadiums?

[JakaB]

Dave,
Thats a great point...but when you look on the other thread and well respected people tell Todd to forget about a classic walkable routing because the majority of golfers are cart riding numbnuts...you have to ask yourself what really are fads and what are trends.   Numbnuts don't even know a fad when it hits them in their ass, they just follow the crowd...so yea restoration is a fad and like the muscle cars and free sex of the 70's all good things go away leaving modernization/sterilization to lead the fools again.

[THuckaby2]

Not at all certain that I fall into the category of "well-respected", but just to clarify...

My advice to Todd on that other thread is based purely on the assumption that the three holes that require a hike to get to are GREAT.  If that's the case, then hell yes, get people there however, but build the golf holes.  Sacrificing great golf holes for the sake of "flow" or to maintain a "classical walkable routing" just makes zero sense to me, ESPECIALLY in light of the fact that yes, today riding is the way the VAST majority of people play the game.

Is Todd trying to make a point, or build a great golf course?

I am absolutely NOT advocating catering to the numbnut masses or anything like that IN GENERAL.

Just in THIS CASE, not building the great golf holes seems silly.

TH

[A_Clay_Man]

Darn, I have to disagree with Barney.

Aren't the knumbnuts the green chairman and memebers who don't know what they have and go and renovate a classic?

To me, the definition of classic applies. Standing the test of time.

So, it is no fad, it's just makes good sense to keep your asset spit and polished.

[John_Lovito]

The various ranking lists may aid the sustainability of the restoration trend.  Many private clubs take a great deal of pride in their ranking (nationally and within the state).  If clubs that undertake restoration projects move up on these lists, other clubs make take notice and consider their own projects out of pure ego/pride.

[Paul Richards]

John:

Fair point.

But if a club does it because his rival did it, to "keep up with the Jones'", isn't that playing into the hands of being a "fad"?

[John_Lovito]

Paul,

That is a good point.  I suspect, like almost everything else, that golf course architecture will have cycles that effect both new and existing designs.  Look at all the classic designs that were altered post war to emulate new construction at the time (ponds and trees added etc.)  The question is how long will each cycle last. It looks as if (I sure hope so) “classic” principles of architecture are reemerging and hopefully it is a trend that will last for a long time.  I have no doubt, however, that at some point in the future tastes and preferences will once again change and a different style architecture will be emphasized.

[Craig_Rokke]

I think John L. raises a solid point about the rankings. I can't think of any course that has undergone a quality restoration that hasn't faired better in the rankings.

[Paul Richards]

Craig:

IMHO the reason that the restored courses do better in the rankings is that the intention of the original architect is once again brought to the fore.  The many inconsistencies that have accumulated over the years are once again, wiped clean.