[James Boon]

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.

Michael,

Your idea of an architect providing strategic documents for the future as well as preventing ignorant green committees from doing more harm than good, are very valid.

However, I'm afraid I can't agree with your opening few sentences. Buildings are changing all the time, their materials with a few exceptions are all subject to weathering changing their colour and texture. The layout and appearances are always changing as owners over time have made amendments for better or worse. I recently looked at an old vicarage that was listed but over the course of its history from its medieval origins, through Jacobean, Victorian, Edwardian styles, up to today and each one gave the building its very special character making it worth listing.

Therefore on reflection, though I still think golf courses could be listed, the idea of preserving a course or restoring it in its original architects character certainly wouldnt be easy. I think this is what most people are thinking of, especially with the amount of restorations we see going back to the original architects theories. It it makes me think of Burnham & Berrow, where the original course was then expanded and extended by Fowler, Alison and especially Colt, but more recently Hawtree and Pennink, all of these periods in the courses heritage giving it the character it has today. Burnham is far from the only course with this sort of a heritage and while they couldn't be returned to any one architects original visions, they should be preserved from inappropriate or unsympathetic changes.

Cheers,

James

[James Boon]

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!

Adrian,

I do see your point as no one likes being told what to do, but there are buildings all over the country where the owner can't do exactly what they want, so I dont think its a massive leap to thinking it could work with golf courses?

Cheers,

James

[Tim Nugent]

What a slippery slope.  Just what we need, a group of self-appointed "Experts" who have no skin in the game, telling private land owners what they an and can't do with their own property.  More Governmant mandates.  I think if you look around the world, it's readily evident that we need less government in our lives, not more.  Quick, name me 3 things government does well.  When it comes to government involvement, one should be careful what they wish for, they just might get it and find out what the Law of Unintended Consequences is all about.

[Adrian_Stiff]

James - A golf course aint a building. A situation where I have fill in a detailed application form wait 3 months and then pay some team from the "Golf Heritage" £5000 to decide if I can build a new back tee at the 11th is not a great idea . The fact that some green committees make choices others dont like is just the way it is. Not all of Abercrombys courses were great, I nearly re did one and boy was I going to chop it about, all for the better in my opinion. Opinion is really what is about when clubs add bunkers, ponds, fountains, tees, plant trees, narrow fairways, widen fairways and rebuild greens, most courses have greens that can be improved or need to be improved for 21st century play, leaving a golf course for the 19th century is really not that great idea.
There are plenty of architects that can restore, renovate with some modern flavour, just leave it to the club and them to sort, not a  self appointed gentlemans club.

[Peter Pallotta]

Neil - I used to think the answer to this question was "yes", and I used the very UK buildings-model you describe as a basis for the argument.  But now I think the answer is "no" - again, for the very same reasons/basis.  As you note, in the UK all buildings built before 1700 (if there's anything original left of them) are listed.  Which means, essentially, that it is age, plain and simple, that is the criteria. In other words, it  doesn't really matter if a (relatively intact) building from 1650 was originally a church or a loo, or whether it was a castle or a shoe-maker's shop; and it really doesn't matter whether in design and construction that 1650 building was an exemplary example of fine craftsmanship or the home-made and slapped together work of a run-of-the-mill jack of all trades -- the reason it's listed has not much to do whether or not it's significant, but most to do with the fact that it's old.  Now, from where I sit, that's just fine - I like old things, if only because they are old.  But the trouble is, once you remove the notion/value of significance to discussions about listing golf courses, and instead just focus on age, you don't have much left worth discussing -- any course older than X simply gets listed, thereby casting a very wide and indiscriminate net; and on the other hand, once you do factor in significance, you are moving into un-charted territory as far as process and criteria, but are -- or soon will be -- essentially defining a golf course, any golf course, as a work of art -- and thereby relegating its primary function as a field of play to second place at least.  I'm not sure there'd be even many architects, past or present, you'd want their work judged but its artistic merits first and foremost.  Once a course's long-standing value as a field of play is removed, it might as well be considered a park or a field, and perhaps would be so considered in the not to distant future.

Peter

[Tom_Doak]

I can't imagine an instance where a "listing" would be ENFORCED by GOVERNMENT.  What I had in mind was more along the lines of the Alister MacKenzie Society or the Donald Ross Society listing a handful of courses that were the architect's most significant and which "should" not be changed ... and if they were changed they would lose their status on the list.  That status in itself would be enough to make club members think twice about the newest green chairman's idea.

[Michael George]

Tom:

That is interesting.  I am not familiar enough with these societies to know whether: (1) there is enough stability for this to work, and (2) they have enough influence with courses.

Do you think it could work if the USGA and Royal and Ancient had designations for certain golf courses and if they were altered from the original design, they would lose the designation?  The could have committees set up of architects and golf course historians based on the predeceased architects in order to make these decisions.

For instance, you could be involved with Mackenzie courses based on your extensive knowledge of his courses.  Brad Klein could be involved with Donald Ross courses.  Gentlemen like Wayne Freeman and Tom Paul could be involved in Flynn and Wilson courses.  George Bahto could be involved with Macdonald courses.  I know that I am missing people, but these are just based off books.

[Neil White]

Tom:

That is interesting.  I am not familiar enough with these societies to know whether: (1) there is enough stability for this to work, and (2) they have enough influence with courses.

Do you think it could work if the USGA and Royal and Ancient had designations for certain golf courses and if they were altered from the original design, they would lose the designation?  The could have committees set up of architects and golf course historians based on the predeceased architects in order to make these decisions.

For instance, you could be involved with Mackenzie courses based on your extensive knowledge of his courses.  Brad Klein could be involved with Donald Ross courses.  Gentlemen like Wayne Freeman and Tom Paul could be involved in Flynn and Wilson courses.  George Bahto could be involved with Macdonald courses.  I know that I am missing people, but these are just based off books.

Michael,

Exactly what I was thinking about - there are people out there who really care about a certain architects work, more in fact, than the courses themselves it would seem. 

Tom's suggestion that the 'status' of being designated a Mackenzie listed course for instance, makes the clubs membership think twice and more hopefully about making changes which are not akin to the original architects intent - they are proud of what they have - plus they have the ability to refer to those societies should they have any future intentions to make remedial changes and search out advice.

There is a course local to me, Walsall, a Mackenzie layout, who are extremely proud that the layout is relatively untouched from the layout suggested to them by the good Dr. back in 1930.  It is this kind of willingness to preserve what they have that is vital if an architects work is not to be compromised, and in Walsall's case the layout should remain as it is come its centenary and beyond.

Going forward courses from architects such as Pete Dye or Jack Nicklaus could be considered as candidates for 'listing' in an effort to retain them as examples of architecture throughout the years - this process can go on and on...........

Anyhow, just a thought.........

Neil.

[Mark Pearce]

The best hole at my home club (a Colt design) was the 12th.  A 400 yard dogleg left to right, with a green ringed by bunkers.  One of those bunkers was short of the green, allowing a shot that carried it to run on, which, given that the hole played downwind in the prevailing wind was a great help.  To get the right angle to play in over that bunker, however, you needed to be hard on the right side of the fairway.  On the inside of the dogleg about 220 yards off the tee was a large bunker, with a small but deep pot 50 yards beyond.

In the past two months our new (and highly skilled) course manager has removed all seven previous greenside bunkers and replaced with four bunkers, aligned to make it easier for a golfer on the left of the fairway to run the ball on.  The approach from the right side of the fairway is far harder.  So, a great strategic hole, requiring the golfer to challenge to right sided bunkers has been dumbed down to require a safer bail out off the tee.  All that just so that the course manager could "show us what he can do".  He is, by the way, an extremely skilled greenkeeper.  On this evidence he isn't much of an architect yet.

So yes, I wish golf courses were listed.

As to Adrian's arguments, these all apply equally to listed buildings.  Listing buildings can be a pain but is a valuable way of preserving our heritage.  Same applies to golf courses.

[Mark Chaplin]

Mark did the members have the right to vote against or call an EGM? That's if the majority were against it.

[Mark Pearce]

Mark, no, the work was simply started at the end of the season.  The first I knew of it was when another poster here (an architect) mentioned the reconstruction of one of the bunkers inside the dogleg (the little pot) as a revetted bunker.  There's no doubt that the quality of the work being done is extremely high (technically), it's just nonsense arcitecturally (in my book anyway).  Of course it would have been good for the membership to have been consulted but the committee didn't see the need.  Sadly.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Listing may or may not be a good idea, but it is possibly one way to try and slow the deterioration or destructions of some of the great courses in these isles.

Clearly confirms what has been said on here over the last few years, in that we can’t rely upon the architects/designers because it seems to be just a business to them - putting (as many have posted) the bread on their tables so their families can eat. In fact can we actually rely upon or even hope to be assisted by those who benefit greatly from destroying our heritage, ops sorry to those who do care I will use the word modify nor destroy.

Yet we all know the problem, it’s the runaway or the never ending development of the equipment which has out stripped the classic courses. There was a time when the development of the equipment was important, but now we have achieved stability in both the ball and clubs, so why do we need to continue to this madness regards not controlling technology. Fine replace Hickory with steel or composite material but it should perform within the same spectrum not outperform the club it is replacing for consistency reasons. This is one of my problems with The R&A, their lack of taking control, worst still not seeing the potential problem in the first place.

But the real problem is players wanting low scores, in part due to money and testosterone levels re both for the male and female players. The easy way is use technology to assist, but then I see that as the equivalent of athletes taking muscle enhancing drugs, its stinks, its cheating one’s self and worst still the AHs at the R&A condone such behaviour.

So who is doing anything about it – yes this is when we get the big silence – after all are not all receiving some sort of reward for allowing the format to continue unchanged – i.e. architects still get paid for modifications, players make money thanks to better scores, in other words all SEEM to win, but we forget the game we all say we love is prostituted for your pleasure. So who is going to be the first one to stand up with a real suggestion that might work?  Neil's thread at least puts up a suggestion as to how to retain what is left of our great courses. He is at least seeking ways to combat the erosion, while all others are enjoying the financial rewards in helping to destroy our golfing heritage.

Melvyn

[Adrian_Stiff]

The problems you have with LISTING is that the rights and wrongs are just an opinion. Whose opinion is the the one the matters must lie with the owner, the owner being a singular or group (membership). The club must police and protect itself as it see best, it is not for some onlooker to determine the fate.

I know of two MacKenzies that not very good and a poor Abercromby. Yes there are bits to save but these courses are only mediocure and if the club could some other land 9 holes of the old MacKenzie would be axed. The ODGs made the best of what they could but sometimes the land was against them, its not a slagging of a Dr Mac, if he was here he probably would agree.

Education, persuasion and better direction for the golf clubs is a better way forward and perhaps these ODG appreciation groups need to 'friend' the clubs. I am not a particular fan of the Wentworth redo but by the same token I dont think Wentworth was really great before and I am not sure there was much to savour in some of the holes. Almost all golf courses evolve, very few have the same routing, same architect since they were first made, those changes were considered improvements as time progresses. There is plenty of change at Prestwick even after it went from 12 to 18. What one person likes another wont. Let changes continue, but try and get them done with good design in keeping with the old.

[David_Tepper]

"Listing may or may not be a good idea, but it is possibly one way to try and slow the deterioration or destructions of some of the great courses in these isles."

Can some one name 5 "great courses in these isles" that are actually suffering from "slow deterioration or destruction?" I suppose the 18th hole at Wentworth is an example of this, but can anyone name others?

[Carl Johnson]

I haven't read all the predecessor comments, above, so this may be o.t., but (for what it's worth) I know the club house at the Asheville (N.C.) Municipal Golf course is on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places.  The listing below from the National Register website suggests the entire golf course is listed.

Municipal Golf Course (added 2005 - - #05000318)
Also known as Buncombe County Golf Course
226 Fairway Dr. , Asheville  
 Historic Significance:  Event, Architecture/Engineering  
Architect, builder, or engineer:  Sayre, Christopher, Ross, Donald  
Architectural Style:  Other  
Area of Significance:  Landscape Architecture, Entertainment/Recreation, Black  
Period of Significance:  1950-1974, 1925-1949  
Owner:  Local  
Historic Function:  Recreation And Culture  
Historic Sub-function:  Sport Facility  
Current Function:  Recreation And Culture  
Current Sub-function:  Sport Facility  

I'm not an expert on the National Register, but in general its purpose is to recognize U.S. places of historical significance, and in some cases to qualify those places for tax benefits.  Per their website: "The National Register of Historic Places is the official list of the Nation's historic places worthy of preservation."  I do not believe a listing on the Register imposes any restrictions on the property, however.  The ower's individual property rights are not affected.  For more information, here's their website: http://www.nps.gov/nr/
 

[Melvyn Morrow]

"Listing may or may not be a good idea, but it is possibly one way to try and slow the deterioration or destructions of some of the great courses in these isles."

Can some name 5 "great courses in these isles" that are actually suffering from "slow deterioration or destruction?" I suppose the 18th hole at Wentworth is an example of this, but can anyone name others?

My friends have collated over 4 times that number since the early 1970’s – perhaps if you think about the mods you may even beat our number. Since I picked up a club I believe that our numbers too would rise, but to keep some form of clarity of mind lets start from the early 70’s

Melvyn

[David_Tepper]

Repeating the question:

Can some one name 5 "great courses in these isles" that are actually suffering from "slow deterioration or destruction?"

By the way, how many "great courses" are there "in these isles?"  25? 50? 100?   

[jim_lewis]

Just what we need, one more opportunity for the government to trample on private property rights. I would sooner see ANGC (as an example) turned into a corn field than have the some government agency tell them what they can and can't do to their course. There are some things much more important than golf. Property rights are just one.

[Mark Pearce]

Just what we need, one more opportunity for the government to trample on private property rights. I would sooner see ANGC (as an example) turned into a corn field than have the some government agency tell them what they can and can't do to their course. There are some things much more important than golf. Property rights are just one.

How about the idea of listed buildings?  Would you agree that historic buildings should be protected?  I ask because I perceive that there is a significant cultural difference here between the USA and UK, that difference being in the balance between individual rights (including rights to property) and the value of heritage and society's interest in it.

[Melvyn Morrow]

David

In Scotland there are over 600 courses, so once we get rid of the international crap, as a true golfer there are approx. 500 great courses in Scotland. I'm not talking of the over watered over manicured type of walk in the park courses, but real golf courses built for the game and not as many love to call them championship courses. Man, all you have to do is open your eyes free your mind and play the Royal & Ancient Game of Golf, then you will discover just how many real great courses are out there.

Remember a great courses does not require every hole to be fantastic, it’s the overall experience of walking and thinking ones way around that counts, an experience that many have lost over the years.

Melvyn 

[Tom MacWood]

Here is a link an old thread the touched on this subject, one of many back then. I don't believe there should be that many courses that are listed...a relatively small number of historically significant designs. And IMO it should be more about preservation and protection, rather than restoration. Today there are far too many redesigns taking place in the name of restoration, and many are coming from respected 'restoration specialists.'

What is the problem if an architect must wait three months (or even a year) before making a change to Pine Valley, Cypress Point, Morfontaine or Hirono? I probably should have listed significant courses that have already been butchered by modern architects, but that list would be too long.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,14254.0.html

[Tom MacWood]

Here is a link to UNESCO's world heritage sites, which are a mix of natural and cultural, some of which happen to be architectural.

http://whc.unesco.org/en/list

Here is a link to the Society to Protect Ancient Buildings site:

http://www.spab.org.uk/

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Interesting article-Assessing Golf Courses as Cultural Resources-  from the National Register of Historic Places website:

http://crm.cr.nps.gov/archive/23-10/23-10-5.pdf

[Jud_T]

While I'm certainly against unnecessary Government meddling and am more in favor of Tom's type of proposal, there's one wrinkle that I don't believe has been mentioned.  In the states, buildings given a historical designation accrue significant tax advantages over time as property taxes are typically frozen at current or reduced levels.  While I'm not sure what kind of property taxes courses pay, particularly in GB&I, I'd imagine this would be a very attractive proposition if offered for name courses that are likely to be around for the next 50 years when one runs the numbers.  Also what if one could choose whether or not to apply for historic designation?  Doesn't that put the decision in the owner's hands?

[Tom MacWood]

I should also say that IMO an organized effort to preserve and protect significant works of golf architecture is a pipe dream. Architects and Architecture have been identifying and protecting significant works of architecture for a long time now, over 100 years. In order for something similar to take place in golf architecture, it would require the involvement of golf architects and the major golf architecture organzations. I don't see that happening any time soon. Golf architecture, and the golf architure associations have historically had very little interest in its own history. And I think there are reasons for that.

One of the major differences between the two disciplines, there is a standardized well established academic ciriculum for architects, and major part of that ciriculum is the study of the history of architecure, and the classics. For that reason architects have a greater appreciation of their past. There is no standard ciriculum for golf architecture, and no study of golf architecture history.

There also appears to be more economic pressure on golf architects, for whatever reason. GCAs do not want to limit their opportunities to make money through renovation, restoration and redesign.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()