Should Golf Courses be listed?

[Neil White]

All,

Reading the thread regarding the alterations to Broadstone and watching a video of Ben Crenshaw talking about the restoration to Pinehurst No.2 got me thinking.........

In the UK there is a practice of 'listing' buildings.  This is described as below from Wikipedia:-

A listed building may not be demolished, extended or altered without special permission from the local planning authority (which typically consults the relevant central government agency, particularly for significant alterations to the more notable listed buildings). Owners of listed buildings are, in some circumstances, compelled to repair and maintain them and can face criminal prosecution if they fail to do so or if they perform unauthorised alterations

There are currently three types of listed status for buildings in England and Wales:-

Grade I: buildings of exceptional interest,
Grade II*: particularly important buildings of more than special interest.
Grade II: buildings that are of special interest, warranting every effort to preserve them.

The criteria include:

Age and rarity: The older a building is, the more likely it is to be listed. All buildings erected before 1700 "which contain a significant proportion of their original fabric" will be listed. Most buildings built between 1700–1840 are listed. After 1840 more selection is exercised and “particularly careful selection” is applied after 1945. Buildings less than 30 years old are rarely listed unless they are of outstanding quality and under threat.
Aesthetic merits: i.e. the appearance of a buildings. However, buildings that have little visual appeal may be listed on grounds of representing particular aspects of social or economic history.
Selectivity: where a large number of buildings of a similar type survive, the policy is only to list those which are the most representative or significant examples.
National interest: significant or distinctive regional buildings e.g. those that represent a nationally important but localised industry
State of repair: this is not deemed to be a relevant consideration for listing. A building can be listed regardless of its state of repair.

Surely it would be in the best interest of both the courses and golfers alike if courses considered to warrant such protection were 'listed' by a governing body and the owners were empowered to maintain / restore to how the courses were previously.

Additions of tees wouldn't cause concern as the course is merely adjusting itself to modern day golf but alterations to bunkers and greens which are the fabric of the architects original design intent would be protected from alteration / removal and any such remedial work would require the consultation from said governing body before any work could commence.

Just think if ANGC was 'listed' or say Wentworth?

Many classics have been irrecoverably altered and are now a pale shadow of their former selves.

How would or indeed could something like this work? 

Does it at least warrant consideration to protect some of the worlds finer examples? 

Neil.

[Frank Pont]

Neil,

This something I have given a lot of thought since I come across a lot of classic courses that have been ruined without much thought by clubs. In most cases its a combination of a club that has no clue about the historical value of their course and an architect (if one is involved at all) who has no knowledge of the history of the course or even worse doesn't care.

Problem with following the principle of listing is who will be in the committee to judge any proposed changes. God forbid it would be a body like EIGCA, who supplies most of the architects who have done most of the damage sofar. Local authorities with no knowledge of golf would be even worse.

My solution sofar is to make sure there are detailed surveys of what is there (greens, bunkers, undulations) , before any changes get made. That way one can always go back if a "renovation/restoration" has failed. Also it is key to go back and find as many old pics and aerial pics of the course as possible to understand the evolution of the course over time (this is critical at the moment in helping me do restorations at Le Touquet at the moment, and at Royal Hague and Kennemer in the past).

In terms of guarding history probably the best way is to educate the club members on the historic value of their course and then incorporate a rule that any important change to the course requires 75% of the votes in an AGM.

[Tom_Doak]

Frank:

Good suggestions, but at the end of the day clubs are still at the mercy of the architect they've chosen to work with.  I've worked at a couple of clubs where an old master plan that proved not so great was incorporated into the bylaws of the club ... which made it almost impossible to fix the things that were wrong ... but eventually, the club gained enough faith in me to find a way around the previous architect's work.

Some change is inevitable at most clubs.  Perhaps a better alternative would be to have a small group of architects who were really committed to restoration and not renovation, who would be a clear choice for a club.  However, I'm not even sure if I would be part of such a group ... I believe that preservation and restoration is a viable option for a limited number of special courses, but just a fad for a lot of others which might be improved through quality design and construction.

I also proposed a couple of years ago that architects might list their own most significant works ... no more than 3-5 courses which they feel are the best examples of their work and ought not to be changed, though of course they could modify their list over time.

[Adam Lawrence]

EIGCA has done some work with English Heritage looking into the idea of classifying some golf courses as 'historic designed landscapes' as are, for example, the parks of Brown and Repton.

[Duncan Cheslett]

The trouble is that such a plan would have very limited public or political support.

In the case of an old building most members of the public would want it preserved.

In the case of a historic golf course most members of the public would want it turned into a park so they could walk their dogs there.

Most members of the public have no interest in golf and rather resent the amount of green space - particularly in urban areas - which is taken up by private golf courses.

[Melvyn Morrow]

It might be a good idea , if only to kick the R&A into action and do something on either properly controlling technology or fully understand the need for a rollback.

They would not like to be seen to go against a Listing.

Also it’s the only listing on this site that would make some sort of sense, and be more useful than the best rated 50 or 100 courses.

Although I think the R&A would kill it off before it forces them into serious action.

Melvyn

[Adrian_Stiff]

No its a bad idea. Clubs need to move with the times. You have safety issues that continually change, clubs acquire more land, theres plenty more to consider the club might do the right thing or wrong thing but you have to simply respect its the golf clubs property and ownership and they make the call, not pass that on to some minor opinion that thinks his head and views are law.

[James Boon]

Neil,

An interesting discussion, and one which I brought up a couple of years ago. Here is the link to it, which also includes links to even earlier such discussions:
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,40028.0.html

As I have to work with the listed status of buildings on a regular basis, I am quite happy that this could be made to work in principle for golf courses. However, there are a lot of complications such as which body or group would have control over the listed status and then who exactly would be qualified to make the required judgements? As is said on the previous thread, some guys who do this as a living at the moment, feel they wouldn't want to pass judgement!

Nevertheless, a listed building, watched over by good conservation officers, doesnt have to be kept as a museum piece, and can be developed or extended, but it must be sympathetic to the buildings heritage and current status. This would be the same for golf courses as alterations will need to be made for many reasons, I'd just prefer these to more more sympathetic to the heritage of the course at times.

I have read some opposition to the idea, mainly from guys in the States who possibly have a different attitude to letting somebody else tell them what to do. But knowing how it works here for buildings, I'd be interested to hear how such things work in the USA from anyone with experience?

Cheers,

James

[James Boon]

The trouble is that such a plan would have very limited public or political support.

In the case of an old building most members of the public would want it preserved.

In the case of a historic golf course most members of the public would want it turned into a park so they could walk their dogs there.

Most members of the public have no interest in golf and rather resent the amount of green space - particularly in urban areas - which is taken up by private golf courses.

Duncan,

I see where you are coming from, but there are plenty of buildings that get listed that aren't loved by the public as a whole? I'm thinking of some modern buildings from the 60s which aren't loved by all, but are still deserving of such status.

I don't think that a golf course wanting to change a few bunkers or rebuild a green would be of much interest to the general public anyway?

Cheers,

James

[Melvyn Morrow]

Adrian

While I understand your point of view, I feel that many in the golfing industry are stuck in a rut. Designs are in effect some variation of someone’s template, if not then its an island Green which also stops the creative juices from flowing. Perhaps some need to think outside the box, re-look at golf when it was the King of Sports. Take a step backward and look at what is being done in the name of modern design on piss poor locations.

I certainly do not have all the answers, but clearly the game in now controlled by distance, which in itself in not a problem, well that is, if we can limit that distance to match our courses. The game certainly needed to achieve a level of consistency in its equipment which only finally happened with the introduction of the rubber ball at the turn of the 20th Century. Having said that the Gutty gave good service and steadied the game which caused the boom in golf in the latter quarter of the 19th Century.

The problem and this is where I fell the R&A lost whatever credibility it had ever achieved in not realising that now stability reigned with both ball and the clubs. They should have stepped in and halted further development of the equipment except for improvements for consistency reasons. Alas they did not, they let it run and run and run causing the bloody mess we are in today. Old great courses designed for past equipment standards now having to be lengthened, just where is the sense in that, its bloody madness and still The R&A think that they are governing to game.

Designers need to re-look at the game, pull in more design to limit distance back to a more realistic level thus helping courses to remain circa 5,500-6500 yards.

Many may say it’s not their game, being forced to control their shots, but come on is that not the original purpose of the designer in the first place. Par 3 seem to prosper so why not Par 4 and 5.  We need to get back to DESIGN, to push or catch or ultimately make the Golfer think his/her game, his/her shots and how he/she is to navigate a course no longer totally open to the long aerial game. In other words give the game back to the golfers by activating design, negating the need to re-stock ones bag of clubs every half dozen years or so and being reliant on the equipment to achieve a lowering of one’s score/handicap. It will mean taking the game back from the manufacturers and putting it back into its rightful place between the Designer and the Golfer.

It’s just a matter of wills, question is who has the bottle let alone the balls?

Melvyn

[Niall C]

Neil

Excellent topic.

I have an awful lot of sympathy with Franks view thats so many courses over here, whether they are recognised classics or not, are getting some horrendous makeovers and tweaks that there should be some sort of protection to prevent something really worthwhile disappearing in the eagerness of the latest greens convener to make his mark. However where I have a problem is that ultimately it comes down to interpretation as to what is worth keeping and what isn't. Tom also talked about the problems of changing a course where there is a rigid policy of preserving what is already there. I could also add that Tom's view might not have been in accord with other experts for example, so are his views valid ? Basically it comes down to interpretation and opinion.

However I think Adrian sums it up best. What was relevant for 1990 might not be relevant now. Its not a rigid policy that we need to promote but the promotion of good design ideals. Clubs should be encouraged to look at that and get advice from a professional rather than deal with problems or issues in house on an ad hoc basis.

I might also add that as someone who works in the property business I see the benefits and the pitfalls of listed building legislation, and overall I have to say the last thing clubs need is more legislation and red tape tying them up in knots.

Niall

[Ronald Montesano]

Elks is a fraternal order here in the states. Two nights ago, one of the lodges burned to the ground in North Tonawanda, NY, north of Buffalo. The building housed one of three original lodges in the state; as the paper read, now only two remain. I don't know what type of sprinkler system the lodge employed, but my question regarding "listing" of buildings would be, could an older building have updated its infrastructure to include such a sprinkler system? What to do if the newer technology assists in the preservation of the listed building, yet somehow makes minor, middle or major changes to its appearances? Does one never update, in order to preserve?

On to golf courses...I'm not making the identical argument, as ecologically-minded, computerized, targeted watering systems can be installed without making changes to the routing. What if some argument, akin to Adrian's on safety, is brought up? We've read the argument about a tournament ball, restricted in flight/distance, to remove the necessity of course lengthening; couldn't a well-heeled club, where money should be no object, institute such a policy? You show up at the guest entrance, reach your locker for the day, where a supply of such a ball awaits on the top shelf? Policy would be, return what you don't lose...we'll use the scuffed balls for the range and recycle the unused balls for member and guest play. If the club opts to host outside events and qualifiers, then it would cross another bridge.

And to Adam Lawrence...kudos on the Kuote at the bottom of your posts...CH

[Jud_T]

Might this also be an interesting backhanded way to limit ball distance?  For example, say the first course that was listed was The Old Course and then several other of the Open Rota courses.

[Frank Pont]

Niall,

let me be clear, I think changes should be possible, BUT there should always be a good record what was there before the changes were made. This so that one can always go back to the original when the changes later don't seem as good an idea as they seemed in the first place.

Case study: De Pan, a Colt heathland course in Holland, had 3 greens changed in the 1980's by a well known English architect firm. Reason was lengthening of the hole in two cases (holes 5 and 11) and agronomical in the other case (hole 7). Of the three new greens, one is wel done (the 11th) and the other two are failures, in that they do not look like anything out there on the course. The club realizes this and would like to restore back the original green shapes, but unfortunately the original greens were NOT surveyed before they were removed. So now I have the nice task of trying to bring back these greens with the help of 5 fade polaroid pictures taken from about 80 yards of the green. This is what I want to avoid in the future.....

Tom,

I agree its always a debate what needs to be preserved. For one I would say original Colt, Simpson and MacKenzie greens would be a good starting point  (add all the other architects you want).

[Melvyn Morrow]

Let’s not forget a very important history lesson, that being  ‘Equipment Technology Kills Design’. If this lesson is not learnt or understood then you condemn the design to an early bath (modification or redesign within a year or two)

Melvyn

[Niall C]

Frank

I think your example there might be worth exploring  a bit further. If the listing legislation was brought in how would it work ? Would it basically say that you couldn't touch anything without consent ? If so that would mean you would be involved in a mountain of paperwork and ultimately trying to convince some official who perhaps doesn't even play golf that changing these 3 greens back to what they were would be a good thing and in keeping with the rest of the course. I can't think that would be worthwhile effort.

Perhaps the simpler way of doing it would be to say that before any earth can be moved there needs to be a survey done to keep a record of what was there before you undertook the work. Obviously you would need to have a lower limit so as not to include refilling a bunker in that definition but ewven so I think it would be fairly cumbersome. To my mind you just want to promote it as being good practice to do as you say.

Now having said that, tell me this, in redesigning and rebuilding those three greens, will you be making a survey and keeping a record of how they are now even though both you and the club think them bad greens ?

Niall

[Scott Stearns]

All one has to do is take a look at the Sharp Park debate to see that government involvement in golf course preservation is nuts. 

[Frank Pont]

Niall, maybe I wasn't clear, I am all for preserving NOT for the bureaucracy involved with a listing process.

Key is to survey what is there before you begin.At De Pan this was already done after the 3 greens were redone, so we have the current situation in 3D.

Cost isn't an issue, with the latest technology you can scan the whole golf course in 3D for less than 6 k euros!!

[Adrian_Stiff]

Surely we do not want a band of self appointed GODS that are going to tell us what we can do and what we cant. Just let the clubs decide if they want to make changes and if they want to do it alone or do it with an architect LET THEM CHOOSE. Golf  courrses have always evolved and that should continue. In my short time I have seen one of my golf courses have extra planting to narrow the playing corridor.....I AM PISSED OFF  of course but there is nothing I can do about it. I have done plenty of changes to existing courses too and mostly the clubs dont even know that James Braid designed their course, in the UK there is very little thought about preserving, the committees and owners just want to make their course better, but they are the not the ways this site sees as being better.

As mentioned we should concentrate efforts so that the the golf courses and equipment match and we dont have to keep making alterations to combat new found length.

[Craig Sweet]

http://www.nps.gov/nr/national_register_fundamentals.htm

[Melvyn Morrow]

Adrian

Do I see some common ground between us

Melvyn

[Michael George]

Interesting thread.  

However, I don't think you can list golf courses.  Buildings stay the same as time passes.  Golf courses do not.  Wind, rain and other elements continually change courses.  Likewise, trees grow, bunkers lose their shapes, greens shrink due to mowing patters.  Further, courses go through differing economic times where they are maintained differently.  

I don't know if architects currently do this, but they should prepare a strategic planning document for their clients re: the golf course that they hand over to the owner along with the finished golf course.  Such document would spell out what the architects ideas were on each hole, where change would hurt the design and where change may be warranted as time passes.  It may also recommend maintenance practices that would support their goals.

However, I fully understand the idea of protecting courses against ignorant greens committees.
  

[Neil White]

All,

Thanks for the responses - positive and not so positive - I'll attempt to reply individually.......... here goes..........

Frank,

Regarding your point about who would sit on the committee, I can only think that there would be a number of architects / other interested parties out there who are of a similar view about retaining a course as close to the original as possible and they themselves would form a body able to consult on any changes requested by said course.

This could involve, as you suggest, surveying existing so that should any remedial works be considered inferior then they could be returned to 'last save' point so to speak.  Obviously it would be better if the course were able to consult with a knowledgable body prior to making the changes - if only for the body to advise for or against or at the very least offer their suggestions.

Your point regarding educating courses as to the historic value is I believe of paramount importance as some possibly aren't aware.

Tom,

A good suggestion that architects be able to 'list' what they consider their most important works - but who makes the call when the architect has long since passed?  

I believe this is when a body needs to come into existence if only to be there at a consultation stage prior to works commencing.

Adam,

How have the EIGCA got on working alongside English Heritage? To talk about a golf course in the same breathe as a Capability Brown park makes perfect sense to me - both are of substantial historic importance and need protecting from 'improvements'.

NB - Like RM I too prefer a house more crowded......

Duncan,

I'm not sure that public or political opinion really matters and I am not proposing that they really need get involved - the whole process would be contained within a small group of people to include the course owners / committee and whatever governing body is responsible for offering consultation regarding works.

Adrian,

Whilst I see your point over the course being their property they should still have responsibility over ensuring that changes are sympathetic to the original design intent - In property, should you buy a property that holds a listing status you then 'buy' into the fact that you can't change things wholesale - you are 'buying' into that responsibility and should be proud of the status.

I may be wrong but the current listing system in the UK is only a few decades old?  Properties have been added to the list either by recommendation from a governing body or by the owner of said property asking for listing status - I believe the same could work for golf courses.  Any course owner of merit should surely know of the courses heritage and pedigree architecturally and want to retain it for future generations.  The listing would prevent unscrupulous owners or new owner from altering unnecessarily a considered classic course.

James,

Apologies for covering a subject already brought into discussion.

Your point:-

Nevertheless, a listed building, watched over by good conservation officers, doesnt have to be kept as a museum piece, and can be developed or extended, but it must be sympathetic to the buildings heritage and current status. This would be the same for golf courses as alterations will need to be made for many reasons, I'd just prefer these to more more sympathetic to the heritage of the course at times.

really gets to the crux of what I was considering when initially posting.

Melvyn,

Whilst I think the technology argument has a place it is not necessarily with the protection of retaining a design intent - however, as in most cases your point of who has the balls to bring something that is inherently good for the game of golf as a whole hits the nail on the proverbial..........

It may not be considered as important a point now, but what about in 100 years or more time when all of the greatest work has been rehashed in the name of progress.

Going back to Frank's suggestion, perhaps we really should be implementing a program of surveying / photographing all considered courses so that future generations can properly return an altered green / bunker to its original state.

Niall,

Legislation, if used to protect, is surely a good thing?  As you suggest courses need to be able to consult if required in order to do what is best for the course in the long run.

All,

Surely it is best for the game if what is considered important now be retained or only altered under the gaze of a body whose collective understanding of the architects work assists in ensuring that changes are sympathetic or if considered too extreme, vetoed.

This body should not be a Governmental department but a group of individuals, be they architects / historians / other interested parties under the umbrella of the R&A / USGA with the sole purpose of retaining classic courses, both past, present and future for our children's children ad infinitum.

Neil.

[James Boon]

Neil,

No need to apologise for covering a topic allready discussed. I know some people will give a rather abrupt "this has been discussed before" response, but we ere all newbies once! 

As I said I think the principle is a good one, but who would be in control is the biggest issue for me, whether thats in this country or the USA or elsewhere. If anything, I would have hoped that the R&A could at least be at the table for any such discussions but as to how much good that would do, who knows? 

Cheers,

James

[Adrian_Stiff]

What right should someone have to tell another he cant change his golf course. Absolutely NO OWNER would agree to trashing a million or two overnight to LIST his golf course against change.

This is the most bizzare thread I have ever seen on here that some of you think this is actually a good idea.

If you have been involved in the planning process and ridiculous tripey red tape that exists today you would understand how thses things pickle business's and allow ponces to charge me a £5000 fee for officially telling me I have a bald head!