Restoration vs. Renovation

[ian andrew (Guest)]

I'll put an interesting example to this question. At Cataraqui we will be rebuilding the secong green. It features a very prominant back shelf that is too fast, and a lower plateau that has settled and become mostly unpinnable. The plan is to duplicate the green with slighly less slope on the pinning areas and pick up an additional 500 square feet on the entire right edge. We will be returning the bunkers using the photos from the 1930's, but adding a slight ridge to divert water around the top of two bunkers to stop washouts. The green and bunkers will end up looking identical to the 1930's photo, but it won't be the quite same. My question to this group (as was to Jeff Mingay at the time), is that renovation or restoration.

[Peter Galea]

Ian,

In simple terms, which I like, renovate is to make new, restore is to put back or make oringinal.

Sounds to me like you've got a "restorvation."

I think the definitive answer could be provided by Doak, Hanse, et al.

[Jeremy Glenn. (Guest)]

K.Hegland,

My contribution to this thread would be to mention a third side of the "restoration/renovation" issue.  By that, I mean the "redesign"

In my mind, Restoration is going back in the past.  As everyone knows, it's taking the golf course and restoring it (in part or entirely) to a previous state (a chosen year or time).  Making it as it once was.

Renovation means staying in the present.  It's really just fixing things, mostly from a technical or construction viewpoint, without wanting to alter the actual design of the course.  Ressoding a tee or slit-draining a fairway, would be examples of a renovation.

Finally, redesign means going ahead.  It basically involves taking the present course and altering it in a manner that has nothing to do with the past, but rather gets it to fit the "modern game".

The redesign can take on two directions.  The first is what I can call the Soft Redesign, which is to say modernizing the golf course without changing its fundamental look and character.  Adding a back tee or moving a farther down the fairway would be some examples.  Basically, when you're changing the course into something new but still wish to respect the integrity of the design, you're doing a soft redesign.

The Hard Redesign is pretty much nuking the damn thing and starting something totally new with complete disregard for the course's past or present features.  Not necessarily a bad thing, but not one to undertake indiscriminantely.

Of course, there's always gray areas between these so-called "categories".  Ian Andrew's example, in my mind, is both a soft redesign of the green and a restoration of the bunkers.  Augusta National going to bentgrass in 1980 is probably a renovation, but some might say it is a soft redesign.

At any rate, whatever you call it and however you define it (debates on definitions are always somewhat futile), the important thing, as we all know, is not to pretend you're doing something that you're not.

[TEPaul]

Ian:

Your example is a rennovation. Maybe a good and practical rennovation that was undertaken to solve a problem but a rennovation nonetheless.

A restoration would have been to restore that plateau to what it was before it settled and became unpinnable and for the back of the green that had become too fast the solution was to probably slow the greens down until it wasn't too fast any longer. That's not a very popular solution these days of course but nonetheless that would have been a restoration.

The other was a rennovation! Don't feel guilty about it--if that's what they wanted it's probably best to give it to them before they hire the wrong person to do the same job or worse yet latch onto Tom Fazio who would come in and redesign their entire course for free since the plateau had settled and the green back was too fast!

[Jeff Mingay]

Restoration isn't at all about restoring an aged course to a past form and appearance from a specific year. That's a very simple, unintelligent and impractical way to look at.

Golf course restoration is about restoring/reviving original playing characteristics and appearances, based on sound judgement and knowledge of the original layout in question and the philosophies and style of the original architect.

It's not an easy job, which is why there are only a few experts in golf course restoration today. But there are a number of wonderful examples of classical restorations that have been completed, and sadly as many failures.

As for Cataraqui, Ian. I'm anxious to see that 2nd green in the spring before passing any judgements on your plan to rebuild it. I will say though, Tom Paul makes a good point. Restoration would involve rebuilding that section of the green that has settled, and perhaps also slowly the green speed down in order to maintain the slope. (Ben Dewar tells me it's an unforgetable green.) Your plan sounds like told renovation.

John Smith, a long-time member of Catarqui and a founding member of the Stanley Thompson Society, has put together a booklet about the evolution of Catarqui. (I imagine it will be similar to your Gulph Mills booklet, Tom.) I think it'll be available this year sometime.  

[ian andrew (Guest)]

Tom and Jeff, Do you really think "any" club is going to slow the green speed down? I wish some would, I found Crystal Downs almost unplayable in a dry late fall.
Cataraqui would be concidered very average for green speeds.

I get the impression that the definition implied for "restoration" may not be achieveable.

[TEPaul]

Ian:

No, I don't think it's likely that many clubs would opt to slow down their greens. I think they should come to understand though, the dangers of continually speeding them up!

I don't like to use the stimpmeter that much for reference but I believe that complex greens (undulating, sloping, contour filled) can play extremely well now and in the future in the 9-10 range and no more! More clubs hopefully will come to understand this in the name of preservation of a unique aspect of classic architecture (classic greens) and put at least a cap on speed increases from here!

The other thing I would hope for is a far better understanding amongst clubs that a particular stimpmeter number is simply not transferable from one course to another. It's something that should be analyzed as something individual to a particular course. For this I can't think of anything better and more accurate than what we've referred to on here as the "Steve Curry greenspeed barometer".

Surely solving the whole increased greenspeed problem is not quite this simple but this would be a great first step.

[Jeff Mingay]

Ian,

Why do you presume "any" club won't slow down their greens in favour of preserving green contour? Perhaps these clubs you reference in general don't clearly understand that option.

Which leads me to a quote from William Flynn (that I try to live by). Flynn wrote, "An architect should never lose sight of his responsibility as an educational factor in the game. Nothing will tend more surely to develop the right spirit of the game than an insistence upon the high ideals that should inspire sound golf architecture."

If those contemporary golf architects (such as yourself) consulting clubs with aged classic courses don't promote slowing down greens in favour of preserving classic contour, who will? If this trend of softening greens in favour of increased green speeds continues, the game is on a dangerous path.

Do you really have a sense that Catarqui's 2nd green MUST be softened? (It's worked for decades until now.) Or is it simply that you have a feeling the club will NEVER slow down it's greens to a reasonable pace? Was this a membership decision, or a decision made by Carrick Design?

I ask these questions for the sake of discussion.

[Derek_L]

Restoration vs. Renovation


How about this for kicks:Pureist vs. Realist

[Derek_L]

That was supposed to read:


Pureist vs. Realist

[K.Hegland]

Agian I want to continually thank everyone who has been contributing thier ideas and opinions, the more information I get the better, so thanks to everyone who has contributed.  

TEPaul,
I love what you have to contribute, but to make things clear, I only got to meet Karl Olsen, I didn't get the opportunity to pick his brain, though I wish I would have had the opportunity for that.  Karl gave a presentation last year to one of our classes at MSU about his restoration, that was an amazing presentation.  Sorry about way I stated that to appear as though I got to meet with him exclusively.  As for Doug, if anyone ever get the opportunity to meet him, go for it, he is a great guy.  I lived with him and his wife for a couple of months during my internship at Austin Golf Club, what a treat that was.  I got to see some truely amazing pictures of Sand Hills before it was Sand Hills, helicopter and construction, absolutely amazing.

Jeremy Glenn,
I like your input on redesign, but I don't know if I agree that redesign means going ahead, I've seen some really good green complexes get "redesigned" and the outcome was horrible, a knowledgable green committee, architect, and superintendent, have to work jointly to create something that works and encompasses the "spirit" of the original course, I'v also seen courses "redesign" greens that do not match or blend with the rest of the courses characteristics or style.   Again I'm not trying to sinle anything out and when it all boils down it getting the right people for the project and carrying out a quality job for the betterment of the club and golf in general.  

Mr. Mingay,
I couldn't agree with you anymore, restoring a golf course is not an easy job, lots of work, lots of researching, lots of opinions, etc etc.   I like what you have to say!!

Ian Andrew,
 I would never say restoration is unachievable, you stated Crystal Downs was too fast in the dry conditions of fall!!  I'm biased on Crystal Downs but that is a perfect example of an absolutley fantastic restoration.   Mike Morris did an excellent job there, I've had the opportunity to get to know him rather well and  you would be hard pressed to find a more knowledgable guy.  I played the Downs in August, and as late at December 14th of this year and it is truely my favorite golf course that I have played, you step onto the tee and feel as though you have dropped back 70 years in time, amazing.

[TEPaul]

K.Hegland:

Great to hear about the "before" photos of Sand Hills. If they are good ones they would be absolutely invaluable for such as some of us here who are interested in what the land looked like first in detail and to compare it to "post" construction.

As an example, the "before and after" photos in GeoffShac's "Cypress" book of #9 is a case study in an architect creating an amazing hole almost exclusively by simply "identifying" it!

[K.Hegland]

TEPaul,
I wish I could say that I was in possesion of those photos, but they are part of Dougs personal collection, I just feel fortunate to have gotten to see them.  Sorry about that.

[RJ_Daley]

http://terraserver.homeadvisor.msn.com/image.asp?S=12&T=1&X=407&Y=5796&Z=14&W=1

Tom, here is the best on Sand Hills that I can do for you at this time, (if you hadn't already viewed this).

It is like reading an x-ray.  Taken near the end of construction (Aug., 25, 1993), with some holes grassed and growing in, and some just being shaped out.  I would love to see the pictures K Hegland is speaking of!

If you look real close and use zoom-in feature all the way, you can almost see Dan and Dave out there on their equipment up on #18 (which is last to be finished)  I think that is Bill C sitting on the back of that pick-up near where Ben's porch would soon be located, drinking a soda...