[Patrick_Mucci]

I am under the impression that both NGLA and Yale were restored by enlightened superintendents.

Then, you're laboring under a false impression.

Did they need an architect?

YES

[Ian Andrew]

There are few reasons to consider:

It helps to have someone passionate about the original work explain why it should go back.
I've only seen one or two members ever with enough knowledge AND the ability to present it effectively.

Golf course work often requires approvals from outside agencies to do most work, you may not like drawings, but agencies sure do.
Half of all the clubs I work with can not remove a tree without some form of approvals!

Often the end results looks the same as the original, but the way they were rebuilt is different to lengthen the lifespan (particularly bunkers which have become quite complex in order to make them more stable and eliminate contamination
 Restoration is not just putting something back, it's also making sure it will last
That does sometimes involve minor works around the features designed to collect or redirect water to address issues left from the past
The trick is hiding what your doing.

I obviously do a lot of restoration work.
I've only had one client in 25 years with 18 untouched greens.
The courses are not as intact as people think and often our role becomes "how far" or to "what date."
(for fun - just look at Merion and tell me what date you would choose - I can then argue effectively against any selection you make - so can the members)

It extends to budgets, images and even agronomy related issues.
Considering how little it (should) cost, why wouldn't you get someone to be sure everything is done right.


I've rebuilt a number of houses for friends and there really isn't anything I haven't done.
I own an Edwardian house with a beautiful Arts and Crafts interior.
I brought in a professional  carpenter to do some minor restoration work for me recently, it cost me a little extra...
I certainly can do the work, but you can't see where he's been (and that mattered more than money).

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

If a club retains an architect, they typically have a motive behind his retention.

It's not a spontaneous situation where an architect is lost and randomly drives through the front gate.

The club usually has a concept in mind.

Then, the selection process begins.  It can be a short or a lengthy process.

Once selected, in many to most cases, the architect is given a predetermined "mission statement" as opposed to a carte blanche approach where the architect has complete, unrestricted/unrestrained artistic license.

I am aware of some clubs that feel that their course is mediocre at best, and as such, they want it reinvigorated, ergo, an architect is brought in and given ample creative freedom.

Each situation is different, but, you specifically referenced a "classic" golf course.

If the club had made the decision to embark on a "true" or 'pure" restoration, and historic aerial and ground level photos were abundantly available, I could see the project being an "in house" project.

But, I'd still recommend the hiring of an architect for a variety of reasons.

[Tim Martin]

I am under the impression that both NGLA and Yale were restored by enlightened superintendents.

Then, you're laboring under a false impression.

Did they need an architect?

YES

GJ is correct in that the current superintendent at Yale is responsible for the lion's share of the current restoration endeavored over the last ten years.

[mike_beene]

We are in the middle of one and politics never goes away. It is too bad the architect can't send the members away and let us come back and see the finished product. Everyone loves what is happening, but then they get certain areas they think are untouchable.If I was an architect and could live without renovations for member owned clubs I wouldn't touch one. Everybody has some idea they think is better. It is the same people who want to give a pro a golf lesson.We have a patient architect and will get a better result than we deserve.

[BCowan]

great post Mike

[Tom_Doak]

A golden age golf course gets roughed up by well intended but misguided Green Committees in the 1960's, 1970's, 1980's, and 1990's. Trees (hundreds, maybe thousands) are planted, fairway lines changed, greens have shrunk, bunkers rebuilt with flashed sand faces, bunkers removed & grassed over, and the tee boxes warped. Otherwise, the design and lay of the land is unchanged.

Many classic clubs across the country could be lumped into the case study above. Many hired architects to come up with "Master Plans" and to consult through a "restoration"/"renovation."

It would seem to me the majority of restoration work is common sense...cut down trees, widen playing corridors, restore the greens to their original size, and rebuild the bunkers & tees. The remaining would be up to construction or in-house team with the guidance of a few aerials.

So, what exactly does an architect add to the process of restoring a classic golf course?

Pat:

I think the value of expert advice is still greatly underrated.

But I would agree with you that many restorations are much more complicated than they need to be.  I think more than 75% of everything we recommend to clubs is something I could tell them on the first walk around.  I wish they would just pay us fairly to do that, and move on ... but instead they want a $30,000 Master Plan with multiple visits to let the members have their say and feel confident in the process, because that's what everyone else is selling them.

[Mike_Young]

I've rebuilt a number of houses for friends and there really isn't anything I haven't done.
I own an Edwardian house with a beautiful Arts and Crafts interior.
I brought in a professional  carpenter to do some minor restoration work for me recently, it cost me a little extra...
I certainly can do the work, but you can't see where he's been (and that mattered more than money).

Is the is the Canadian way of saying you cannot hit the nail on the head with a hammer?

[Jason Topp]

Pat:

I think the value of expert advice is still greatly underrated.

But I would agree with you that many restorations are much more complicated than they need to be.  I think more than 75% of everything we recommend to clubs is something I could tell them on the first walk around.  I wish they would just pay us fairly to do that, and move on ... but instead they want a $30,000 Master Plan with multiple visits to let the members have their say and feel confident in the process, because that's what everyone else is selling them.

That would have been a better use of our money than what we did hire an architect for - a proposed redesign of our putting green that everyone knew we would not spend the money to do but had the plans drawn up anyway because a vocal minority wanted to flatten the thing.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Pat -

It would be ideal if a club would do exactly as Tom says above. Perhaps there are those enlightened establishments where such logic could prevail. It would certainly save time, money and make the entire process more efficient.

But a master plan ( to me at least) serves as a way of memorializing the goals of hiring a professional architect so that the ( 10 year) recommendations and implementations transcend myriad club presidents, grounds and greens chairs, etc. so no arm- chair hobbyist who reads golf books, carries a single digit and lurks here thinks he knows what to do on hole # 4.

It can also flesh out long term budgets and plan long term improvements from new irrigation, practice area enhancements, tree strategies, to new greens, new bunkers, etc.

$30k is worth preserving the course from meddling members who think they know best because they've been playing at the club for 30+ years. Go ahead and implement it yourself if you dare. But use the blueprints produced by a pro.

[Steve Salmen]

Did Cypress do bunker work in house? I vaguely recall that being mentioned.

[Garland Bayley]

I am under the impression that both NGLA and Yale were restored by enlightened superintendents.

Then, you're laboring under a false impression.

Did they need an architect?

YES

Ran didn't mention the architect in his review.
"A primaryreason that The National Links playsexceptionally well today is because of the work performed by its last two Green Keepers. Firstly,beginning inthe late 1980s, Karl Olsonbegan reversingseveral decadesof neglect by clearing trees and brush, restoringfairway width and playing angles to the course, and recapturing lost bunkers and green sizes."

"Then, with the full support of the club boardbehind him, Bill Salinetti, who replaced OlsononFebruary 1st, 2003, has taken the course to the next level by focusing on how the courseactuallyplays. Gone are the days where the fairways played slow and where practically the only way for a ball to end in a bunker was if it went in on the fly. Fast and firm playing conditions are the rule now with the ball bouncing every which way on both the fairways and the greens. When coupled with many ‘new’ vexing hole locations that haven’t been used in years, The National now has plenty of teeth. For instance, in the 2003 Singles which annually comprises one of the strongest amateur fields in the country, only three players broke the par of 73."

Perhaps you can help us with Ran's oversight.

[John Kavanaugh]

Ran is a Gentleman. Gentlemen do not always reveal everything they know. I thought it was common knowledge who the "consulting" architect was. Sorry, but not really, that Garland is out of the loop.

[Tom_Doak]

I thought it was common knowledge who the "consulting" architect was. Sorry, but not really, that Garland is out of the loop.

John:

Rees Jones has been the consultant at NGLA for several years.  However, much of the restoration work was done by Karl Olson before Rees became involved, and before the club had any consulting architect.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I am under the impression that both NGLA and Yale were restored by enlightened superintendents.

Then, you're laboring under a false impression.

Did they need an architect?

YES

GJ is correct in that the current superintendent at Yale is responsible for the lion's share of the current restoration endeavored over the last ten years.

Tim,

Garland is NOT correct.

The superintendent did the construction work, others, such as George Bahto and Geoff Childs were responsible for the conceptual work.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat -

It would be ideal if a club would do exactly as Tom says above. Perhaps there are those enlightened establishments where such logic could prevail. It would certainly save time, money and make the entire process more efficient.

But a master plan ( to me at least) serves as a way of memorializing the goals of hiring a professional architect so that the ( 10 year) recommendations and implementations transcend myriad club presidents, grounds and greens chairs, etc. so no arm- chair hobbyist who reads golf books, carries a single digit and lurks here thinks he knows what to do on hole # 4.

Ian,

The premise of this thread had it's foundation rooted in the restoration of a classic course.

Ergo, no need for a Master Plan.

It can also flesh out long term budgets and plan long term improvements from new irrigation, practice area enhancements, tree strategies, to new greens, new bunkers, etc.

Creating new greens and new bunkers has nothing to do with restoring a classic course.

$30k is worth preserving the course from meddling members who think they know best because they've been playing at the club for 30+ years. Go ahead and implement it yourself if you dare. But use the blueprints produced by a pro.

Restoration work isn't that complicated.

Aerials from the 20's, 30's and 40's can serve as a detailed roadmap to restoration.

Archival documentation can supply you with all the details and plans you need.

[Dan Kelly]

Just a wild guess here, Pat.

An architect is to a fine golf-course restoration as a conductor is to a fine orchestra.

The musicians, lacking the conductor, could and would make beautiful music -- but it would lack some of the grace notes that the conductor elicits.

God is in the details (as a great architect observed).

-------------------

Jason --

I'd be interested in learning more about No. 10 at Oak Ridge.

What was the process that led to that tree's being planted there? (I'm pretty sure I objected to it on first seeing it. And I'm pretty sure you agreed with me.)

What was the thinking behind that tree? (Obviously, there was NO THINKING behind that willow. Sheesh!)

[Chris Johnston]

To the initial question, the answer is...no...

You don't need an architect to restore a course any more than you need a dentist to complete a crown.  That said, there probably aren't many who will be very happy with a self made crown.  I would strongly recommend both the dentist, and the architect, if you care about the result.

[Peter Pallotta]

Just a wild guess here, Pat.

An architect is to a fine golf-course restoration as a conductor is to a fine orchestra.

The musicians, lacking the conductor, could and would make beautiful music -- but it would lack some of the grace notes that the conductor elicits.

God is in the details (as a great architect observed).

Very nice. A question: if that fine orchestra was a baroque orchestra, and needed a conductor to oversee its upcoming performance of Handel's Messiah, would the musicians and the music itself be better served by a knowledgable amateur (who understood only that a period-correct rendition would use 15 musicians and the same number of singers) or by a world-leading and highly talented and experienced professional conductor with dozens of ideas for bringing Handel's Messiah 'up to date', including doubling the size of the orchestra and choir?

[Steven Blake]

Yes you should always hire an architect.  My only rebuttal is tree removals, if a tree is impacting turf heath then cut it down.  I am not sure you need a golf course architect for that purpose.  That being said, if the membership is unwilling to cut down trees and needs some coaxing from an architect than so be it. 

Steve Blake

[Joe Hancock]

Just a wild guess here, Pat.

An architect is to a fine golf-course restoration as a conductor is to a fine orchestra.

The musicians, lacking the conductor, could and would make beautiful music -- but it would lack some of the grace notes that the conductor elicits.

God is in the details (as a great architect observed).

Very nice. A question: if that fine orchestra was a baroque orchestra, and needed a conductor to oversee its upcoming performance of Handel's Messiah, would the musicians and the music itself be better served by a knowledgable amateur (who understood only that a period-correct rendition would use 15 musicians and the same number of singers) or by a world-leading and highly talented and experienced professional conductor with dozens of ideas for bringing Handel's Messiah 'up to date', including doubling the size of the orchestra and choir?

I love you. I can't comprehend anything on the same level as you, but the love still exists.

Next time, for me, could you use, say, the rock group 38 Special as an example and tell me the nuances of whether the use of two drummers actually made the music better or if it was all for show? Or, if you need to stay true to Canada, you can analyze April Wine.....(tempted to use a smiley face emoticon, but Dan Kelly may be watching).

Joe

[Bill_McBride]

Just a wild guess here, Pat.

An architect is to a fine golf-course restoration as a conductor is to a fine orchestra.

The musicians, lacking the conductor, could and would make beautiful music -- but it would lack some of the grace notes that the conductor elicits.

God is in the details (as a great architect observed).

Very nice. A question: if that fine orchestra was a baroque orchestra, and needed a conductor to oversee its upcoming performance of Handel's Messiah, would the musicians and the music itself be better served by a knowledgable amateur (who understood only that a period-correct rendition would use 15 musicians and the same number of singers) or by a world-leading and highly talented and experienced professional conductor with dozens of ideas for bringing Handel's Messiah 'up to date', including doubling the size of the orchestra and choir?

I love you. I can't comprehend anything on the same level as you, but the love still exists.

Next time, for me, could you use, say, the rock group 38 Special as an example and tell me the nuances of whether the use of two drummers actually made the music better or if it was all for show? Or, if you need to stay true to Canada, you can analyze April Wine.....(tempted to use a smiley face emoticon, but Dan Kelly may be watching).

Joe

I love a good bromance.   

[Mike Hendren]

I'm beginning to think Mahaffey is the smartest guy in the room.

Bogey

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()