[Joel_Stewart]

It's such a dramatic case for doing a thoughtful well executed plan of restoring a classic golf course.  I wish I had more photos to show because the 11th may not even be the best example.

Before:



After:

[Patrick_Mucci]

Joel,

Your photos may depict the basic conflict between aesthetics vs maintenance.

Certainly the after aesthetics are more appealing.

But, the Broader perimeters are less demanding in terms of time and $

It's a balance that's often dictated by the availability of funds.

[Tom_Doak]

Joel:

All I can see in your two pictures are a much different edging of the bunkers, and the removal of a couple of trees in the gully behind the green on the left.

I am sure that the changes made to LACC were far more substantial than that.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Joel
You're right, the 11th isn't the best example
There were significantly expanded fairways and several green surface/location improvements
Cheers

[Kyle Henderson]

Although the pictures are not fantastic, the pdf linked on LACC's website details the improvements that were made.

https://www.thelacc.org/files/NorthCourse_Commemorative_Edition.pdf

Hopefully many in the treehouse will be allowed to follow in Joel's footsteps. From all of the info I've gathered, the resto-renovation is absolutely fantastic.

[Neil White]

Hi Kyle,

A fantastic read - very informative.

Thanks for the link.

Cheers,

Neil.

[Chip Gaskins]

Joel

I never played it before the restoration.  Does 11 "play" much different than before?  Was the front left pad soft or did it play firm enough to bounce?

Chip

[Joel_Stewart]

Ok.  We'll try the 14th, a long tough par 5.

Of course they did a lot work below the ground as well as removing a few hundred trees and reshaping the bunkers.

Before:


After.

[Joel_Stewart]

Joel

I never played it before the restoration.  Does 11 "play" much different than before?  Was the front left pad soft or did it play firm enough to bounce?

Chip

The pad on Sunday wasn't firm nor soft but it is January?  Yes you normally can use it to bounce the ball into the green using the pad. 

[John Kavanaugh]

This thread reminds me of the old Merion threads where pictures were taken of the bunker work right after the restoration.  I'm sure the new bunkers at LACC will look better with a bit of age.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Joel,

I agree the bunkers on the 14th appear to be a better example given the original bunker had lost most of its capes and bays.

On the other hand, I am not so sure the before bunkers on 11 aren't better than the "restored" ones.  The upper left one is good, but the lower ones and in particular the middle one have lost some of the variation in Cape and Bay height, width, spacing of lobes that makes that style of bunker so attractive.

Not sure I think lacy edges are the be all, end all of bunkering.  I actually love the variations that the cleaned up Thomas versions have, and as Patrick points out, maintenance is easier.  Not to mention if the membership is typical mid handicappers, then the clean edge w/o shaggy turf is certainly more user and score friendly.

Are lacy edge bunkers a case of favoring aesthetics a bit too much over playability?  As mentioned, I think the pre restoration bunkers were plenty attractive and I would be plenty happy to be a member of a club with bunkers looking like 11, not as much on 14.

[Sean_A]

I won't ever figure out why folks go ga ga over lacy bunkers.  To me, they don't look any better than ameba bunkers and both look out of place in the setting.  The more important question is have any bunkers been shifted?

Ciao

[DMoriarty]

As Tom Doak suggests, the restoration at LACC was far more substantial than different bunker edges.  

I am not sure how Jeff Brauer can judge what is "good" and not "good" when it comes to the bunker restoration from a wide angle photograph taken at a distance, and I am not sure why he thinks the before bunkers were "Thomas versions" or had much to do with anything by Thomas (really Bell) at all.  Judging from his comments, I'd be surprised if he has seen the course before and after.  Had he, I doubt he would think the bunker changes were merely the addition of frilly edges.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

I have seen and played the course twice before, only seen it in pictures after.  But I see what I see despite you thinking I cannot.  And I chose merely to discuss the bunker style, never saying it was all that was involved in the remodel.  You can quit making your assine assumptions and swipes at me.  Or, call out everyone on this site who offers opinions based on the pictures posted here to even out the playing field. Thanks.

I guess you are right that those bunkers may have been changed, but I played there before the Harbottle/Fazio redo in early 2000's (?) and those bunkers are how I recall them.  Again, may have changed from originals (I know Geoff and Gil were using photos) but I do believe most of the support fills and basic proportions owe at least something to Bell/Thomas even as they smoothed out over the years.

Besides, its an intersting discussion topic, given that so many here seem to think frilly edge bunkers are as I call them, the be all, end all.  I am merely saying that there is a case to be made that the smoother edges are very attractive and that the major component of some of the attractive golden age bunkers is the variety of slope, shape, size and angle of the lobes.  In other words, the subtle variety of the puzzle pieces.

Many modern gca's miss that, perhaps with dozer built bunkers that tend to even out.  My ex used to call the regular ones "boobs and butts." ( a tag I also use for certain particapants here, coincidentally enough!)

I particularly liked the middle bunker for the "odd" extra size of the middle noze, and that part of it is gone.  The entire top edge is merely flat, other than the lacy edges.

Short version, is there anyone else out there that actually kinds of likes the puzzle piece bunkers? 

Anyone who thinks that while lacy edges is an attractive fad, it was that in the 1920's as well, and the tough times of the 30's wiped most of them out, with the rest finished by better irrigation, adaptation to maintenance with machines, the cost of labor, etc.  But most of all, I hear a lot of players complain about a shot missing by five feet being stuck in deep gunk, while a shot missing by ten feet finds (presumably) great lies in liner based bunkers with imported sand.

As Patrick notes, when you consider all the factors involved in the lacy edges, are they worth the concessions made in other areas?  Obviously, some places will find it so, and at places like Sand Hills, they fit right in.  Do they fit with skyscrapers sitting in the background?

Just some thoughts.

Just asking to stimulate discussion.  After all, it's a discussion board......

[DMoriarty]

Focusing on the edging trivializes the bunker restoration, yet the bunker restoration was hardly trivial.  Had you seen the restored bunkers, you would realize this.  Pronouncing the pre-restoration bunkers "better" based on one wide angle photograph taken at a distance is pretty petty when it comes from another architect.  It reminds me of when you started ripping Rustic Canyon after the storm damage and pontificating about the many extra millions they should have spent extra drainage that would have just washed away anyway. A joke.

This was a "restoration" and the idea was to take the bunkers back to the look and playing characteristics of the Bell bunkers.  Should the Bell bunkers have been restored to what?  Mickey Mouse ears?  

[Alex Miller]

Jeff,

are you including lip height in basic proportions of the bunkers?

I only ask because a completely separate example, Palos Verdes Golf Club, another Bell/Thomas (less well-known/heralded) course has very large lips which rise well above the level of the putting surface and obscure views in the same way that bunker did on hole 14. In the old photos of Palos Verdes (and the old ones of LACC I would assume) the bunkers look very much like the restored versions. That is, they have frilly edges and do not rise up.

thanks, Alex

[Bruce Katona]

On #14, the before picture really did not bother my eye, but IMHO the after picture of the bunker work is more appealing.  Was it bunker work or did they lower the green as well?

PS: And frankly the specimen tree behind the green which was removed was perfectly acceptable to me, though I imagine the super was thrilled to have it gone since the shade and shadows it cast created havoc trying to grow grass on the green.

[DMoriarty]

Alex,  What you describe seems to have been the fate of many of the bunkers at the older courses in Southern California.  Not only have the lips been built up but entire bunker complexes have risen up like volcanos and they no longer have much relationship to the surrounds. What impressed me about the bunker restoration at LACC wasn't necessarily the frilly edges, but rather the way in which the bunkers were returned to the grade of the surrounds so they are no long these concave eyesores.  They have again become concave and they again fit with the landscape, and so balls can actually run into them.

In comparison look at the frilly edged "restoration" bunkers at a course like Brookside.  They are essentially the same crappy bunkers with the addition of the frilly edge.  

[JMEvensky]

Short version, is there anyone else out there that actually kinds of likes the puzzle piece bunkers? 

Anyone who thinks that while lacy edges is an attractive fad, it was that in the 1920's as well, and the tough times of the 30's wiped most of them out, with the rest finished by better irrigation, adaptation to maintenance with machines, the cost of labor, etc.  But most of all, I hear a lot of players complain about a shot missing by five feet being stuck in deep gunk, while a shot missing by ten feet finds (presumably) great lies in liner based bunkers with imported sand.

As Patrick notes, when you consider all the factors involved in the lacy edges, are they worth the concessions made in other areas?  Obviously, some places will find it so, and at places like Sand Hills, they fit right in.  Do they fit with skyscrapers sitting in the background?

Just some thoughts.

Just asking to stimulate discussion.  After all, it's a discussion board......

I've never played LA-North but,just from the pictures, I like the look.

Like Patrick,I'd bet that the look is more popular with the non-dues paying non-members.

[rjsimper]

I love that they removed the bunker left of 5 to restore that feeding slope.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Alex,

I call a lip the 0 to 6" vertical cavity that holds sand.  Many "lips" have gone away.  I think what you are referring to is what I would call the support fill.  It does appear that on both 11 and 14 the top edge of the fill may have been lowered to assure vision to the green surface, but I don't know that for sure.

I was simply referring to the vertical differences of the various lobes, such as one being 3 foot above the base, the next 5 feet, or the varying widths of the lobes.  Focusing again on the lower bunkers on 11,  I happen to like the narrow lobes on one end, vs the wider lobes on the right end of each bunker.  It appears they actually added some variety to the top edge.

Perhaps you could call it the macro shapes vs the mini shapes of the frilly edge.  I actually just like bunkers with great variation in macro shapes, largely because they do read from a distance, both similar to the photo and to what the golfer sees from 100-150 yards away when he plays the shot.

David,

Good memory on what has to be a ten year old post.  While I trust Gil made the right choices, he, I and many gca's have discussed the basic drainage at Rustic Canyon.  Nothing petty at all about those discussions.  Just professional exchanges as many here say the old guys engaged in.

I recall Geoff defending it by saying he protected mirco contours.  All well and good, but let's just say that there may have been many approaches, and while I haven't studied it in detail, nor did I do it then, it is certainly at least a valid question to design professionals who actually know something about drainage (you obviously don't)

It may very well have been a good cost benefit ratio to actually install more grading and/or drainage up front to reduce problems over time.  I still think it would have and would have put more engineering into it, at the expense of preserving micro contours.  

Its a similar sort of question to frilly edge bunkers that gca's must answer all the time - is any particular feature worth it for its restoration value, or is it better to design and engineer to meet a problem at hand or conditions (including technology, maintenance budgets, etc?  I understand the holy grail here is towards restoration, without regards to cost or practicality, and surely some clubs, including LACC can afford it.  So, its sort of a thread hijacking to discuss a broader questions, which I probably shouldn't have done to Joel.

But, the only petty thing going on around here is you trying to "Merionize" this thread.  I thought we were going to be on our best behavior for Ran this year?



,

[Joel_Stewart]

I'll try one more, the 17th hole.

Before:


After

[Jeff_Brauer]

Joel,

the more photos you put up, the more I realize that the bunkers had blobbed out.  The lower ones on 11 (your first set of photos) turns out to have been the best looking bunikers shown so far in their previous state.  In the others, evolution has wiped out much of their magic over the years.  No doubt it was time to do something to the bunkers and it looks like a good program.

Is one of the fw bunkers left a new bunker?

[DMoriarty]

Jeff Brauer, Gil didn't post a thing in response to your comments. He is too much a gentleman for that. It was you pontificating about a circumstance you knew little or nothing about, and you have admitted as much since. Below is some of what Geoff Shackelford thought of your comments.  While the issues are a bit different, I think they might have some application here as well.

It was one thing to speculate, but not appropriate to make a suggestion that implies professional irresponsibility on Gil's part without knowing anything about the site or the local politics. But I'm not surprised, as I know many architects are singing the minimalism blues these days, looking for openings to put down an approach they don't respect.
. . .
The "modern mainstream approach" often runs into problems with a site like Rustic Canyon. The natural flood control channel that we gladly incorporated is also the wildlife corridor. Yet neither was touchable with good reason. Without knowing a single thing about the site or project, you suggested that a modern mainstream architect would have addressed the flood control, the implication being that Gil didn't and thus, the flood occurred and that's why the modern mainstream architect is better. And I say, the modern mainstream architect approach would [still] be trying to get the project approved.

Anyway, I am glad to see that in this current conversation you are backtracking just as you did in the past one.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

If you could quit being yourself for awhile, saying that I said Gil said something here when I said it was Geoff, and other greasy techniques you usually use to blast me, you would just end this discussion.  Start a new one, if you wish, although in truth, I hope you get the zero responses you deserve as the internet troll that you are.

I simply offered (in both cases) some professional considerations for those on golf club atlas for those who want them.  You may disagree.  Fine.  They may disagree.  Also fine. 

I didn't accuse Gil of anything, but there are different approaches, all valid, and all with their pluses and minuses.  That is the nature of design.  I am sure there won't be 6 exact design proposals in Brazil for example.  No reason to have more than one gca in the world if we are all going to be the same.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()