[Alfonso Erhardt]

This is directly related to the "what happens after they leave" topic started by Patrick Mucci.

In Madrid, in Puerta de Hierro, an old Colt+Simpson 36 holes, most character was lost in 1998 when two new holes had to be "found" due to the loss of property to a nearby highway. The club used the opportunity to do a major project and lengthen some holes, and "modernize" bunkers, tees and greens. Some holes changed a lot and others not so much, but the overall classic feel was lost.

The club could have asked for a project that maintained the classic "touch" while gaining the required length, etc. but fell for the modern style instead. I don't believe that they even considered the restoration question. Quoting Simpson, "invincible ignorance".

I am sure that if the architects would have been briefed with the course background, something different could have happened, but they were not. I don't know if they enquired about what the club wanted in terms of style and if they wanted to preserve as much Simpson as possible.

My question is:

If architects are called to a club with a classic/historical course and asked for a modernization, what should their attitude be towards such a project? Should they proceed regardless of what the original canvas is like and bastardize a classic design? Should they feel inclined to convince the owners about the value of what they have and that the orignal design/style be retained? Any experience in this type of matters?

Regard,s

[Ally Mcintosh]

I believe that the unfortunate truth of the matter with some architects is:

1. They don't care a whold deal for Tom Simpson or Harry Colt
2.  By imposing their style on a course, there is more of them in it both in terms of recognition of work achieved (quantity) and as a knock-on, revenue for that work... Client dependent of course

[Melvyn Morrow]

Alfonso

Very few if any care. However the worst offenders are the Clubs who generally are just not interested unless the name can pull in more revenue.

What is not helped is this lack of definition as to who is responsible for the course design. My vote goes to the guy who routs the course, not the one who just drawers the plan. Seeing the area and  land prior to any work allows him/her the opportunity to see or feel  all the potential. Alas trying to obtain who in a firm was actually responsible appears difficult in an age of information.

I am not interested in a Company or firm I would like to know who was responsible for the heart of the design the routing. If they are good enough to do the work should they also not get the credit or does it take away some glory form the owner of the firm.

Name the names, feel proud of ones achievements. We should be allowed to know who was responsible  IMHO, may make more interested in the subject matter that we are here to discuss.

Melvyn

[Ally Mcintosh]

Melvyn,

Different firms work in different ways. Some will assign one project to one designer who will route, detail, specify and supervise the construction of his course. Others work more as a team pulling together various ideas. Many will have the associate route the course before the partner / lead gives his input and suggests some changes.

It’s hard to pinpoint who does what in the present tense, let alone trying to work it out from past documentation.

Anyway, all that is slightly beside Alfonso’s question.

In terms of being called in to “update” a course, you can break the work down in to one of the three “R’s”: Restoration, Renovation or Re-Design.

With an understanding Client and a caring architect on a classic era course (with no safety or length or other problems in the modern game), Restoration is a very good option. We don’t do Restoration very well in Europe (partly because we appreciate our architectural history less than those in the States).

Renovation is next – This includes “modernising” a course by changing bunker placement and style, moving tees around (usually back) and playing around the edges of green surrounds.

Re-Design would include the re-routing of a few holes. This could be for any number of reasons but perhaps just to massage the architect’s ego. More often it’s the genuine belief that the proposed routing is better or because of land and safety issues. It also includes building new greens on current holes.

Quite clearly the credit for Re-Design is the highest, renovation receives less and often Restoration receiving the least of all. It also appears to take the least work which is not necessarily true.

So in my opinion, for a club to call an architect in for upgrading a classic course, either they need to have a strong idea of what they want to achieve or the Architect has to have strong persuasive powers alongside humility and understanding of the course’s history. Preferably both. If you get neither, you will have a classic course changed beyond recognition.

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

Alfonso,

This is a very good question. I was just thinking along these lines myself this week. I was going to post a topic asking a slightly different question, but much the same subject as yours. Something like "Architects - what would make you walk away from a project?"

Today's architects somehow magically seem to know what Colt, Simpson, etc. would have wanted. How often have we read than architect X is an expert on Colt or some other ODG? We read that "it's what Colt would have wanted" or "we've reinstated Colt's intent". The recent changes at Wentworth are a perfect example of how to spin the design thoughts if ODGs.

It all depends on how much of the original designer's work is still in the ground. Can you imagine if Augusta approached some other architect than Fazio, say for example someone with a more "minimalist" approach to design. How would they feel about implementing changes that they did not agree with? Would they turn down such a prestigious job on a point of principle? It would probably be easy for the architect to justify accepting the job on the grounds that ANGC no longer represents the Mackenzie/Jones original, and that altering it would not be in conflict with one's design philosophy. I believe that some principled and well established architects might say no, but it would be a very tough decision to make, especially in today's business climate.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Ally

I know, but do you believe that is progress. It waters down the history to the point that it matters not a lot to a point that we could be re looking at Henry Ford’s production line – any colour you want as long as it is black. Actually to some extent that seems to describe some of the new courses I have seen and played upon over the last 20-30 years.

I believe that history of a course is important, that the Design House has a duty to themselves and the course in nominating the real designer. Defuse the talent within an organisation can destroy that flare and understand that individual has not just for the game but the balance of Earth, Wind and Golf Course.  Give these guys their wings in the hope that they will create some wonderful courses, or suffocate them within the corporate mantel to achieve the quality of the also ran which does not warrant a second viewing.

Golf is about that personal touch, it defines our heroes be they golfers, golfers turned designers or just designers. Has GCA just become top dressing of no real value, have the latest generation actually lost sight of the reason they are in this business – no I feel not but perhaps, the corporate pressures are hindering the design flare of these gifted individuals forcing them to go independent in a cut throat market we have today.

GCA I believe must walk side by side with its history, it’s what distinguishes the courses in the first place by being built or modified by the cream of the cream, the top, man, the highly skilled golfer that knew his game and so his business. Each club should have their history clearly defined and passed onto the next generation. It’s a form of giving the club a surname or names. We also need history to remind us of our mistakes and errors in the hope that the next generation will not make the same ones as past generations.

I suppose it depends why one goes into design, to make money or the hope of adding to the great wealth of human knowledge, I sincerely hope it’s both but looking at some of the corporate approach to design the bottom and only line is money. Thank God there are individuals that break through the pain barrier and succeed on their own.

Melvyn

[Matthew Petersen]

It doesn't seem to be the architect most responsible in this scenario, but the owner of the course. If an owner wants to modernize his course then he's not going to hire a GCA who wants to restore it. And any GCA who is hired to modernize a course is going to do just that if he wants to stay in business very long.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Matthew

If it was not for the likes of James Braid little would be left of Old Tom’s designs and or Holes. James had an approach on existing courses that said ‘if it is not broken why try to fix it’. Through that policy he left intact many holes because they – according to him played well and still tested the player.  He did adjust certain Tees and bunkers/hazards to cater for the Haskell but left the course and Holes much as they had been. Many said his time on site was short against a good Fee but you must take into account he was a good golfer and understood what he was looking at and what he enjoyed as a golfer.

His trip to Brora was much published going up in the morning train, home in the afternoon train having made suggestions and recommended mods to a few of the Committee who walked the course with him that day. The Course we see today is mainly the result of these mods he made over a few hours on site. There is a reference to his trip in Malcolm Campbell’s book The Scottish Gold Book (page 149).

So James Braid was a golfer, designer, architect who understood the game its history and where possible preserved it because it was still an effective design even after 30-40 years.

So a duty of care was once alive in the halls of the great designers, so yes I fell there must be a duty of care based upon if its not broken it does not need fixing.

Melvyn

[Adrian_Stiff]

I think the architect should work to the brief he is given. I think that in the pre-agreements it would be likely that the previous architecture would crop up, I can only speak for the ones I have been involved in and this is what happened at each.

1. I rebuilt a green exactly as it was previously but to USGA spec, it was actually not very good but I did as I was told.
2. I built 4 new greens and re-aligned a couple of holes for safety reasons, with no real regard to previous architecture as the club wanted more contour in the new greens, that aside I created the holes so that you could barely tell they were new holes by using similar course features around the green complexes.
3. I built 2 new holes within a valley that were difficult to link in with the previous holes because the land was so different, I thought I produced a great job but was not called back in when the club did alterations on other holes, the club use one of 'my' new holes in their adverts.
4. About 9 new holes to go with in existing course, but the original was poor and no real merit, so I went with a modern style.

Most UK clubs seem to be looking for length or safety, sadly very few know who designed their course, very few mention it on their websites.

[Tom_Doak]

Alfonso:

Every architect should follow his own conscience.

Some, including myself, would not go onto a course with a great design pedigree without wondering what exactly had been lost from the old design, and whether it could be fixed and the course thus improved.  Perhaps the answer to that question is no, and another direction is needed; and if I thought so then I would suggest changes.

Surely, there are other architects out there who will agree with whatever the powers at the club are thinking, just so the architect in question can get the job and feed his family.

The odd thing about your question is to think that an architect could be hired BEFORE this question is addressed at all.  I suppose that happens at some older clubs, perhaps especially so in Europe where there is less attention paid to the pedigree of an older course.  But, I would certainly not just sign up for a job before I had any idea what the committee wanted to do; and it's odd to me that a club would do so.

[Tom_Doak]

Kelly:

It's probably Alfonso who found the pictures for them.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Adrian

I am pleased  to advise you that some 40 plus clubs have now been advised of their original designer. These have come to light as and when I search out new clubs in the late 1800’sthrought to the early 1900’s. To my surprise some club are extremely pleased while others do not even bother to respond, even though their history is incomplete with this information. But that’s their choice.

As a couple of examples I attach the following

First Monmouthshire GC  a Willie Campbell design from 1889 – Club never acknowledge any correspondents , even though it was one of his early designs



The Second is Turnhouse  designed by Peter Lees of Barnton Re The Royal Burgess Golfing Society of Edinburgh course.



Slowly, slowly we will find many of the original designers and advise the clubs concerned.

Melvyn

[Lou_Duran]

Alfonso,

I hope that Jeff Brauer sees this thread and has the opportunity to respond.  Back in the early 1990s, he was tasked by its private owner to modernize my (non-equity private) home course of over 20 years, Great Southwest GC, to make it more saleable.

This owner had acquired the club in the early 1980s in a highly-questionable transaction (members had a right of first refusal but weren't extended the option until days before closing), and simultaneously sold off some 20 acres for an apartment complex, requiring the redesign of three holes (two new greens, and two repositioning of tees).  Prior to this time, this Ralph Plummer design was considered as one of the top courses in Texas right behind Colonial, Preston Trail, and Champions (Plummer had a major hand in all of them).

Jeff did a fine job of building up 15 of the greens, heavily contouring them, cutting deep bunkers and flashing them with fine, white sand, mounding some areas, and otherwise giving the course a totally new look.  The course eventually sold for a high price, and, from what I heard, the owner was pleased as peaches with the results.

Unfortunately, though GSW remains a good course, it is but a shell of what it once was.  I am unaware of a single member of my large group who, after playing the modernized course for awhile, thought it was better or more enjoyable.  On the other hand, most people at the club thought the aesthetics were improved, and the owner, through some slick marketing, was able to build up the membership and facilitate the sale.

Please note that this is not a knock on Jeff.  He did precisely what his customer demanded, though I think the club in the long run was the worse for it.    
 

[Ed Oden]

Couldn't a good argument be made that architects, owners and even members give more deference to classic architecture today than ever before?  I'm not suggesting that mistakes aren't made or that there isn't room for improvement.  But it seems to me that awareness of the golden age architects is at an all time high and there are more modern architects than ever who are willing to treat classic courses with respect and appreciation for their architectural heritage.

[Alfonso Erhardt]

Tom,

Regarding your question, I have realized that people (at least over here) are really clueless when it comes to understanding how good/bad is what they have and what options there are. Therefore, I do think that hiring a knowledgeable architect BEFORE would really assist in understanding what the alternatives are before commiting to something and hiring an architect with a precise briefing which might be flawed from the beginning (as you said, people have to feed their families)

Ed,

I agree with your point. I haven't been interested in golf architecture for long enough, but it doesn't seem like the minimalist/naturalist/golden age theme has ever been as strong as it has in recent years.

Kelly,

As Tom said, it was myself who provided the club with a substantial package of aerials and golf hole photos of the course going back all the way to 1927. Unfortunately, that was 3 years ago - 7 years late. Nobody ever had shown any interest in knowing how the course had evolved from Colt (1914 and 1930) to Simpson (1948) and thereafter before commiting to the biggest upgrade in 50 years.

[Mike_Young]

Couldn't a good argument be made that architects, owners and even members give more deference to classic architecture today than ever before?  I'm not suggesting that mistakes aren't made or that there isn't room for improvement.  But it seems to me that awareness of the golden age architects is at an all time high and there are more modern architects than ever who are willing to treat classic courses with respect and appreciation for their architectural heritage.

Ed,
I wish that were the case but I don't think that many owners and members give more deference.   If it is a classic that has stood the test of time..then bulldozers have no place....the object should be not to disturb the landforms and definitely not to try and replicate some technical drawing that was on the wall in the clubhouse....so often the "respect" is a pure hype job to a membership by a small group that tries to convey that they give deference to the architecture.  When all they really wanted was new cart paths in the name of restoration....
Using an ODG name to hype a place is much cheaper than using a modern signature....JMO

[Ed Oden]

Mike, that may be the true.  But I wasn't arguing relative percentages.  Rather, my point was merely that the deference paid today (however much that is) is likely greater now than at any time in the past.  I will grant you that lip service is sometimes paid to the ODGs and that claims of restoration don't always pass muster.  But at least there are restorations now, and some very good ones at that.  Prior to 25 years or so ago, they didn't exist and almost all work amounted to redesign.  Do you disagree?

[Mike_Young]

Mike, that may be the true.  But I wasn't arguing relative percentages.  Rather, my point was merely that the deference paid today (however much that is) is likely greater now than at any time in the past.  I will grant you that lip service is sometimes paid to the ODGs and that claims of restoration don't always pass muster.  But at least there are restorations now, and some very good ones at that.  Prior to 25 years or so ago, they didn't exist and almost all work amounted to redesign.  Do you disagree?

Ed,
I agree.  I think my biggest issue is not the fact that there are some good ones but the fact that so many are done that should not be done....and mainly because they weren't that good to start with....of course I am basing that on the body of around 3000 courses that existed in 1938.  cheers

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()