Archie:
Had no idea that the work we did at A.C.C.C. was still "controversial", but some people just never let go. I think it was really the decision to take the club private that was the most controversial part, and always found it weird that the Frasers took the money and then stoked the fires. But I guess they were a lot more connected than I'll ever be.
I was hesitant to change the 18th hole from a par five, because it was a famous hole, even though it also seemed like a pretty weak finish to me. Eventually, I realized it had to happen if we were going to introduce the new 14th & 15th, and change direction down that back nine stretch, which the new owners did not like; the new 14th green and 15th tee made it unsafe to keep #18 tee so far back.
The one thing nobody knows is that the new tidal marsh area we created on #14 [that is all dug out, providing the fill for holes 13, 15, and 16] was the key to getting our permits to do all the work along the marsh. The state was very much against the idea of letting us work along the marsh until they realized that we were actually CREATING two or three acres of new marsh habitat as a result of our plan; that change was like Moses parting the Red Sea as far as the permitting agencies were concerned.
The one other change mentioned that was pretty much mandated by the client was shortening the second hole. It was a great long par-4 originally, but at some point they put in a residential road crossing about 50 yards in front of the green to get to a couple of houses built near the marsh, and Mr. Goldberg thought it was both unsafe [casinos don't like liability issues] and interruptive to the privacy of the golf experience. So, we shortened #2, and lengthened #5 into that same space to try and make up for it. The green on #5 is completely different than the old green for #2, though. The only greens where we tried to replicate the old contours intact were #3, #6, #8, #9, and #11 [the former #12 green].