It has been said many times that when integrating a tree into the design of a hole that one risks the obsolescence of the hole if the tree suddenly dies. Of course all trees eventually die, so the risk is not only the sudden one. I thought that it would be worthwhile to reflect on why this fact is held out as reason to avoid making trees integral to the strategy of a hole and whether it is a good reason. (An aspect of this was covered in another thread, but it focused more on change, and less on death. Here is the link:
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,36802.0.html)
Let me say that, in my opinion, the fact that trees die recommends them for use. Yes they die, but so do the golfers who play over, under, and around their branches. So do the architects who make choices regarding their use and (thankfully) the critics who pronounce judgment on that use. If golf is like life, then death surely has a role; if only an analogous one. It is, then, no evil thing that a once-proud oak begins to decline, then to decay, becoming home to other creatures, before finally succumbing to its inevitable end. If a new tree eventually takes hold, it will be an elegy to those who knew the old tree, but eventually will be the only tree in the minds of those too young to remember the old one. And, if it does its job well, it will begin to be thought of in much the same way as its ancestor.
Notwithstanding my over-wrought language, I think it is desirable to try to create a thing of lasting beauty, but not at the expense of creating something real. Why should our children and grandchildren be blessed and cursed with playing the exact same course we played?