Where are all the good restorations?

[Jeff Mingay]

Many of you already know, I'm working on a book about classical restoration. Of course, I want to ensure that I'm not missing anything.

That said, where has some classy restorative-based work been completed that I may not know about? Where might some other promising works be in the planning stages?

Any information is much appreciated.

I've spoken with Tom Doak, Gil Hanse, Brian Silva, Bobby Weed, Mike DeVries, Ron Forse, Ron Prichard, George Bahto, Ian Andrew, Geoff Shackelford and Brad Klein; many superintendents and "turfheads", including Karl Olsen at NGLA, Tom Gray at Franklin Hills, Mich., and Dave Wilber; as well as a number of club members and politicans from across N.A.,  about a wide range of restorative-based projects, both completed and in the planning stages. These include:

Pasatiempo
Fenway
Mountain Lake
Lookout Mountain
Ponte Vedra CC
Timiquana
Meadow Club
Penisula G&CC
CC of Mobile
Newport
Aronimink
Worchester
Skokie
Longmeadow
Huntingdon Valley
Essex Co., New Jersey
Catarqui
St. George's
Riviera
National GL of America

And more. Of course, I'm forgetting a few.

Again, any info. any one might have is appreciated. As are any thoughts any one might have on the subject of golf course restoration -- positive or negative.  

Thanks in advance.

If you'd rather correspond outside of this discussion group, I can be contacted at jemingay@aol.com; telephone at 519-254-6846; or fax at 519-258-8375.

[SPDB]

Jeff  - I think you should definitely try and talk to Fazio and R. Jones. Irrespective of what you think of their work, they have certainly worked on some of the higher profile jobs and their input would definitely be interesting to hear.

I would add to that list (good or bad):

East Lake
Hollywood
Camargo
Beverly

I'll think of some others.

One I always thought was interesting was Tom Doak's work at The Creek. I literally could not believe my eyes when I read in the Confidential Guide that Joe Dey (of all people), had systematically winnowed the total number of bunkers down to 4!!

Tom - if you read this, I would be curious which ones Dey actually kept.  

[Jeff Mingay]

Thanks!

This is exactly the type of response I was looking for, SPDB. I'm anxious for several more similiar posts.  

You make a very good suggestion too. I have every intention to talk with Messrs. Fazio and Jones. They are indeed architects who've worked on "high profile" classical layouts, in many cases in the name of "restoration" as well.

You might have noticed Riviers on my list above = Fazio.

And, if possible, I'd also like to get some insight from Rees Jones regarding his father's work on many Golden Age layouts during his career.

I've spoken with Doak briefly in the past about Camargo, but not The Creek.

Beverly's another I should delve into. Thanks again.

[SPDB]

Jeff-

Remembered another one - Plainfield.

I also would think it would be interesting to get the Super's view (as you seem to have done with Karl Olsen, et al.), mainly from the perspective of getting that classical conditioning. Somebody made the point a while back about the super from Five Farms. Also, Spear at Piping would be a good person to talk to, he really keeps piping at top shape. I also think his new tee at 8 is really terrific, and one of which I think MacD/Raynor would approve if they were given access to the polo field. It replicates perfectly the strategy of the road hole.  

[Mark_Fine]

Jeff,
I can't believe Ron Forse didn't mention Lehigh!  
Mark

[Will E]

SPDB,
I wouldn't call what Rich has done at PRC restoration. What Rich has done is kept the course up to date. I agree that the new tees on 8 and 15 are fantastic. His bunkering work on many of the holes is also a welcome addition. I guess the question here is really about finding a course that is "restored" close to the original design. Right? Or are we looking to find courses that are redesigned but are in keeping with the original architect's style and perceived ideas? I'm  sure much of PRC has changed from the time it opened, but I'd bet that CBM and SR would be very pleased with what Mr.Spear has done with this gem. From what I've been told Crystal Downs is about as close to an original as there is today. I'm not sure that AM ever dreamed of the greens running as fast as they do there, I could be wrong.

[Rick Wolffe]

The Rees Jones Master Plan for the Upper and Lower golf courses at Baltusrol has been an extremely successful.  We are pretty close to completion on a program that has been carefully implemented over the last 10 years.  I would be pleased to go over the program with you.

[brad_miller]

Jeff, hope you book is balanced with both good-great restorations and has some comments on poor jobs and/or missed opportunities, but focus should be on the common themes that have allowed the best ones to happen. (Archie, club issues, historical record....)

Ken Dye has done much work in NY metro area

YALE, YALE, YALE, YALE.....................................

Please also a chapter on TREES...please note Oakmont and WF!!!

[Paul Richards]

If you haven't seen Ron Prichard's work at Skokie, do your
best to get there somehow this summer.  

It's excellent.

The golf course is fantastic.

[Jeff Mingay]

Paul,

I've spoke to Ron Prichard quite extensively about his work at Skokie, and plan to get in touch with Don Cross, the superintendent there, shortly. On paper, the proposed work is very impressive. I can't wait to see the course in person.

SPDB,

The golf course superintendent is, in many ways, more important to the success of these projects than the restoration architect. My intent is to have plenty of input from golf course superintendents throughout the book.

Dave Wilber is scheduled to contribute a (lengthy) piece on the maintenance side of things.

Brad,

Yes, there will be some mention of "missed opportunties" and "botched work". I'm trying to figure out how to best approach that, but it'll be done in the end.

Any info. about blatantly poor work is appreciated as well.

Of course, there will be plenty of talk about TREES. And, yes, Oakmont and Winged Foot might be a couple of good high-profile examples to mention. Thanks.

Rick Wolffe,

Could you please send me an email. I'd like to talk to you about Baltusrol, if possible. Thanks in advance.

Thanks to everyone... anxious for more info.!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Jef
What is your defintion of a restoration?

[corey miller]

I have heard of some clubs who in their restoration efforts presented the architect with a laundry list of likes and dislikes about the course.  what then does the architect do when he is told the course is:
     1. too easy
     2. not long enough
     3. greens not fast enough
     4. fairways too wide
and my favorite
     5. not enough water hazards
he is also not allowed to cut down any trees, and must explain how the bunker that everyone has come to love was changed in the 1970's and looks nothing like a classical bunker.  Also,  he has to worry about a lawsuit if he cuts down a memorial tree between two fairways that is thought to protect players.

I think it gets back to Pat M and his "mission statement".  hire a respected architect who has done restoration in the past and let him go to work.  Maybe when you get a proposal you can ask some "enlightened" questions.  It seems the more involved the greens committee is in the project the less likely you are to get a good restoration.

[Jeff Mingay]

Good question, Tom. My definition of restoration is constantly evolving.

But I will say, I don't believe good restorative-based work has anything to do with taking an aged course back to a specific time in its past history. Not at all.

It's more about restoring classic characteristics that have been lost; restoring a classic look yes, but more importantly classic characteristics -- width, strategies and complimentary turf conditions.  

Bobby Weed has done some interesting work at places like Ponte Vedra CC (Herbert Strong) and Timiquana (Donald Ross) in the Jacksonville area.

Weed calls these projects "start overs". Essentially, the courses in question are ripped apart and reconstructed for as variety of reasons, many agronomic.

Then, Weed's reconstruction work is based on the style of the original architect, and intensely focused on re-instituting classic playing characteristics -- multi-dimensional holes with complimentary turf conditions that emphasize strategies.

Is that "restoration"? I don't know for sure, but it's certainly not a bad way to go about working with existing courses that have aged poorly.

It takes a sharp, educated mind to pull off this stuff too. Another architect could try the same method as Weed and Co., for example, with terrible results.

So, to answer your question (I hope), classical restoration is about re-instituting a mental element to the game of golf, which involves restoring some width and strategies, and doing all you can as the consulting architect to assist the superintendent with cultivating more consistently firm and fast turf conditions through the green.

It's about resurrecting the links principles and characteristics that so many aged courses once possessed but have since lost. And also about restoring a classic, textured, rugged, natural, open look and feel.

There's more than one way to go about classical restoration. And I'd like to hear about, and subsequently cover all successful (and unsuccess) methods in my book.

Hope this helps?

[Jeff Mingay]

Corey,

You "hit the nail on the head."

So many classic courses have been ruined by golf architects taking instructions from a green committee or a board of directors.

You're right, hire a respected architect and let him go to work.

[Bradley Anderson]

In Chicago

Old Elm Club
Shoreacres Club

I haven't played Skokie yet but I hear its very good.

[Mike_Cirba]

In the Philly area, you have;

Merion (Tom Fazio)
Jeffersonville (Ron Prichard)
Aronomink (Ron Prichard)
Lulu (Ron Forse - if it gets approved)
Whitemarsh Valley (Ed Shearon)

I also heard good things about a bunker restoration project at Philly CC that I believe was done by Ron Forse.

I'm sure there are others being done by architectural firms who are move "revisionists" than "restoraunts"..

[TEPaul]

Don't forget about Gulph Mills (Hanse). The course is Ross (1916) but we have some great Maxwell holes too so it's going to be an amalgamation restoration.

Jeff Mingay:

That's one sensible post of yours about what a restoration is or might be in this day and age! It's a totally "reality based" statement on your part!

You're one sensible level-headed young man--I think you're gonna go far!!

[Mike_Cirba]

Oops...sorry, Tom (and Gil),

How could I have forgotten?  

And yes, Jeff...that's quite the definition.

I don't think trying to take a classic course and make it look brand new is "restoration".  Restoring lost features, width, strategies, etc. just seem to blend so well when other things are kept in their aged and evolved state.

[Dunlop_White]

Jeff,

I do believe you will find many varying definitions and applications of restoration through your forthcoming research.

1. Many believe that restoration is the endeavor to return a course to its original design exactly! For instance, if Ross designed a course with carry bunkers 150 yards off the tee, which were abandoned along the way, the strict restorationist would reinstate these bunkers back into their exact original positions regardless of how they would affect playabilty in today's game. I believe Pritchard is a "pure or strict" restorationist. I also think that Silva just restored Augusta C. C. in this fashion.
2. Others believe, as you said, that restoration could be achieved by taking the course back to a certain date, even if it was not the original date. Merion just attempted to do this with the rationale that the latter date was a better representation of Wilson's intent since the course had time to mature.
3. Still others believe that restoration entails retrofitting the original course to today's standards. That would require not only reinstating these lost Ross carry bunkers, but also moving them further up the fairway to account for today's issues of length. Retrofitting classical features requires the speculations and proper interpretations of the original architect's intent or philosophy. Gil Hanse and Tim Liddy appear to restore courses making these type of interpretations.

I contend that Jeff Mingay's definition of restoration is probably the most comprehensive one yet. Restoration should embody the classic elements and characteristics: recapturing mystery and variety through strategic choices and options, reviving the elements of thought, decision-making, shot-making and recovery play and restoring firm, fast conditions through the green.
This may entail all of the definitions above. An architect could most successfully restore a classic course by being a pure restorationist in some instances, by retrofitting in other instances, or by not even changing anything at all in other instances, so long as the classical elements are inherent therein.

[Dunlop_White]

Jeff,

I believe restoring the classic look IS important as well. Restoration and maintenance go hand in hand. But there is simply not enough information available today as how you can restore the look, the textures and the contrasts through grasses, cuts, and maintenance practices. Thus, I am excited that you are going to include a chapter on this in your book. I am looking forward to reading Wilber's work in this area.

Also, please note! When you visit Bobby Weed, you must ask him about the restoration of Linville G. C. in Linville, NC.  A lot of people in Charlotte and Winston are really excited about his restoration efforts on this Ross design. Weed has been working on it for the last couple of winters during their off-season. I heard it was great in that Weed has removed hundreds of trees and somehow has extended their greens so that they tip below the fillpads now bringing collection areas back into play. This is an example of a maintenance measure that I don't understand how it is acheived?
But at the same time, please question the length that he has added to the holes as well? You may want to visit Linville when you visit me as it is 1.5 hours away(North/West)

Dunlop

[redanman]

Sorry if I missed it in the thread somewhere, but in progress may be the best of them all,

Plainfield by Hanse & Co

[brad_miller]

SFGC, about to start in early April, by Tom Doak & Co. 13th-16 will not be taken back to pre 1950's state.

Might be interesting to have best restorations done on the works of the "golden age masters" Tille, Dr Mack, Ross, CBM, SR, Maxwell.........

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Jeff
I wonder if golf architecture might benefit from terminology used by architecture. Architecture differentiates between restoration, rehabilitation, renovation, historical preservation, historical reconstruction, and so on. Architecture has had centuries of experience in these areas and many of these terms have developed a negative conitation, especailly among those interested in historical preservation.

For example what was done at Merion would be considered a restoration, "treatment of an old building to recover its prior or 'original' condition by removeing later accretions, by recreating elements believed to have been lost and by reworking weathered surfaces." From my perspective Merion would have been better served by historic preservation, " protection, rehibilitation and maintenance for historical and/or aesthetic reasons of a building." Reworking the weathered surfaces of Merion was a mistake, it ruined both the historic and aesthetic quality of the golf course. As Ruskin said in 1849, "Restoration, so-called, is the worst manner of Destruction."  

I think there is a great deal of confusion when it comes to these terms and their definitions. What do you call what Rees Jones did at East Lake - his fathers work at Oakland Hills retained more of Ross. Does Ken Dye restore/preserve old courses or remodel them? And from what I've seen of Weed's work at Ponte Vedra, he either had no knowledge or no intent of restoring the work of Strong. There seems to be very few architects who have the talent and expertise for historic preservation. This approach takes a great deal of research and sensativity which seems to be lacking in many of the so-called restorations found today.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

I agree with you that the terms used do actually have distinct meanings and such, not that they don't. I feel the skewing of the terms is done more on purpose by architects, committees, whatever, for reasons of perception or salesmanship, though. But I agree with you even more that even a club intent on doing a really good restoration HAS TO UNDERSTAND that some architects/contractors can do it really true to form and others can't.

Sure Merion has been used on this site as an example of a part of a restoration that may have gone awry but they may have simply failed to understand that any architect and contractor just don't do it the same.

Merion did reach out to C&C, though. But Merion had transitioned from Hanse/Kittleman to Hanse/Kittleman/MacDonald, briefly to committee/MacDonald and then on to Fazio/MacDonald after C&C said they couldn't do it. Sometimes you can't get the architect just because you want him (C&C are structured for low production, don't forget) and that might have been an example, but they tried.

But anyway, if C&C had come onboard for Merion's bunker restoration they would have been given the same restoration instructions, the same photos and aerials and the same historic documentation to work with!

And if they did the bunker work my sense is they would likely have talked Merion out of restoring those surrounds and would have recommended just doing sand and drainage restoration; or would, at the very least, have tried to pull off a "fix" of the surrounds without touching the "look" of the surrounds at all.

If they couldn't have convinced Merion of that they may have walked at that point or they may have actually restored them but can anyone who seriously knows this stuff say that their finished product would have looked like MacDonald & Co? No way at all, and if anyone seriously thinks their product would have then I've got to say they're dreaming! But the fact is Merion had to move forward and they did, and it seems hard to tell at this point if they feel the product that they got is  similar to what they would have gotten from C&C.

If anything at all comes out of this ongoing restoration discussion it should be that architects and contractors are just not interchangeable when it comes to the finished restoration product.

I wouldn't even say it should necessarily be blamed on the architect or contractor either since they really aren't making mistakes, it's just clear that some just don't do things the same way others do.

I guess then the club or committee looks like they're to blame, but again, not really because most of the time they just fail to understand that architects/contractors just don't do things the same way so the product can be very different with identical instructions, photos, documents et al, and all in the name of what everyone thinks and hopes will be a really good restoration!

[Brad Klein]

There's obviously a clear difference between modernization, renovation and restoration. But I have a question that might prove uneasy for some people who appear to think that everything the dead guys did was great.

There are dozens, actually thousands, of perfectly awful, dopy golf coirses out there that are classical - perhaps because they were not well designed, or because the plans were mis-built, or because the course was chopped up owing to real estate transactions, bad misanagement or whatever and can't be physically "restored" anymore since the rotuing might have changed.

How does one "restore" these? or should one? Can one? I think if you explore this question - you'll find that all restoration involves generous amounts of interpretation, decision-making, resurrection and recreation. I often think that the best restoration brings a golf couse back to a condition of glory that it never before enjoyed. Using modern (small-bladed) equipment, irrigation, turfgrasses and engineering, it's possible to create much of the sensiblity of hand work that made so many classical era courses great. But of the approx. 7,000 or so pre-1960 courses, or the approx. 4,000 pre-World War Two courses, are there really even a 1,000 that can be meaningfully "restored in terms of going back to original plans? Or do most, maybe all, require a serious act of deciding what to go back to and what to evoke.