Pat:
Believe me I'm more than familiar with the way various clubs are structured and the processes for initiating, generating and taking a restoration plan through memberships and also how to research and analyze the proper way to implement that restoration plan.
But for the benefit of those on this website and others I really don't see the point of trying to find fault or culpability with a golf club, certainly Merion, in the processes used by them or various clubs.
What's worth talking about though is the extent to which research and planning is necessary in certain circumstances and also talking about how that process can go awry even with the best of intentions from those that run those golf clubs.
My experiences tell me that the first thing any club and those that run them should realize is that the restoration process they are about to enter into is not the first one that has ever taken place anywhere, as they seem to feel, and that they really don't need to proceed in a virtual vacuum alone! If they can just understand that first, and most don't, they can then reach out and begin to collaborate with other clubs that have been through the process they're entering into.
This is so damned important to know but it generally becomes apparent only in hindsight! If you can reach out to others that have been through it before you it becomes so much easier to see where the obstacles lie, where the mistakes are made, what kind of architect to consider etc, etc. I've always hoped that somehow Golfclubatlas could be a help in this process of information dissemination or collaboration!
Why so few clubs don't first do this amazes me now. They obvously think it's no real big deal; that architecture isn't very important or complicated generally, or that they know all the questions and all the answers, for some reason. The most prevalent of all is the amazingly inaccurate assumption most clubs make that any architect can help them do and acheive the same thing in the same way if only they explain to him generally what they want.
So this I would call the research phase that precedes even the hiring of an architect and precedes setting out to construct a restoration plan.
In restrospect, the compiling of a "design evolution report" of the club's architectural history, if that history is interesting and the course's original architecture is valid is extremely important, in my opinion. When I did the one for GMGC I really had no idea what I was doing or doing it for. I just came across an historic aerial and said; Oh my God, look how different everything used to be!" At first I had no idea what it even meant in an architectural or playability context--I really knew nothing about architecture then. I just kept looking and comparing and compiling and typing the whos, whens, whys and whats until it was all done.
Someone in the club saw it, said it should be published with the aerials for the membership and it was. When it went out it produced enough interest and even pride in the golf course's original design intent! It showed what the potential was of what was basically out there but shrunken and covered up, and inspired the consideration of comprehensive restoration. Consideration of restoration also dovetailed with an analysis of what we might need to do with our course cost-wise in a comparison of a move to a new course at Ardrossan!
And so we interviewed a few architects that we considered real restoration architects and interviewed them by showing them the course and the "design evolution report". I even remember that the names Tom Fazio and even Pete Dye, who I've known for years, were discussed but were discarded because we concluded that as good as they may be, restoration was probably not something they concentrated on.
So we hired Gil and the meetings began and went on and on. I'm so thankful now that Gil was there for all these meetings because he was able to explain to us in a very low-keyed but completely logical way that one of the most dangerous things that can drive a really good restoration awry in the beginning, middle or end is the pat assumptions people can make!
Members on committees or a Board are very prone to making assumptions of what they believe to be a logical recommendations but it takes a Gil Hanse or someone as good as our super is in many areas, to explain logically; "That might seem logical on the face of it, but if you do that here's what may happen or happen elsewhere that you might not at first imagine". That kind of thing takes so many forms and filtered through correctly can avoid so many problems down the road.
Personally, I believe that the vast majority of what Merion has done and is going to do is excellent and very well conceived and that it will turn out very well. It's no secret to those who are my friends and acquaintances at Merion though, that on the single issue of the bunker surrounds that they may have made a mistake.
I'm more than willing to admit that many at Merion may have believed that those ancient evolutionary surrounds were falling apart and needed to be taken apart and completely rebuilt starting almost from scratch! Still today I'm not completely sure if they felt that way simply because they did not like them and the way they'd become or that they viewed them as an ongoing maintenance headache. What I do suspect though, is that in the process of doing completely necessary drainage and sanding work they ASSUMED the "surrounds" inherently had to be part of the bunker rebuild project!
If that's the case that was a very dangerous assumption that led to the demise of some really beautiful, natural evolutionary bunker surrounds that were replaced by a more modern looking machine made assimilation of what they once were.
That very well may be what they wanted though, and I don't know whether that's true or not. Some members like what they have now, some probably don't know the difference or don't care and others are very sad about it. The question is if they understood or seriously considered that the surrounds could have been left alone or at the least repaired when the two other elements of sanding and drainage were done.
Anyway, I don't know that fault finding is necessary or benefical now, but the perscription of research, collaboration and constant "assumption checking" is a necessary one in restorations, particularly if the course is one as famous, classic and unique as Merion. Gulph Mills is a fairly complex restoration too but not in the same ballpark as Merion. We have various latitudes, in other words, that I don't believe they ever had.
Anyway, the whole thing is interesting, time consuming, sometimes frustrating but ultimately fun and gratifying. But on certain courses and certain types of courses I'm more adamant than ever that any old architect will not and cannot do what you might think you want him to do simply by just giving him his marching orders, as you keep saying! Only if it were that simple, but I guarantee you that it's not!