Union League Torresdale Redesign - Rees Jones?

[corey miller]

Nick


Unlike you there are some courses I absolutely hate, in fact I played one the other day.


I would also offer that I have not been "taught" in regards to Rees...I have learned. 


I have not played much of his original work though in this day and age I would question why anyone would hire the man.  I have played many of his re-works.


Again, regardless of what he was told or the mission statement, the work itself is lacking and in some instances amounts to architectural malpractice. 


We are now in a different era so if a club would rather hire Rees than Doak or Hanse or Devries or Ian A than more power to them.


We can talk about any of his reworks that I have played if you like? Or some of the reworks where the club has drastically changed or covered up the work since Rees left?


I thought however it would be easier if you or someone provided me with an example of his best re-work? 


I stand by my comments in regards to his character as he made some insulting and derogatory comments in front of me about others in the business that he can't hold a candle to. 


I'll play this game. 

[Nick Ribeiro]

Corey,


I believe the original architect would want the design to remain as intended. I have not seen much of Rees "re-work" because a lot of it has been renovated, and in most cases (maybe all) should have been in my opinion. I don't think clubs appreciated the original intent in the 90s the way they think they do today. They just wanted to keep up with equipment, stay relevant, and host majors. Rees did that for them by way of redesign. I don't think just because a club was desperate enough to stay relevant that means we all hang the guy hired to do the work. At the end of the day I wonder how some of the golden age architects would feel about some of the "restorations" we celebrate. How would Donald Ross feel about a 7500 yard golf course at Oakland Hills? If it were me I would say stop ruining the game with technology. Play my course with the clubs I designed the course for, AS INTENDED. Turning a 325 yard par 4 into a 475 yard par 4, scaling out the green, fairways, and bunkers is just as much change as redesign anyway at the end of the day. There are still a few courses out there that refuse to give in to modernization and I have a lot more respect for the club that truly preserves the course as intended then one that tries to keep up with the moderns by changing the course, whether it be redesign or adding distance and making everything bigger.


This debate could go on and on. What about these "restored" courses that have 13-14 green speeds when they were built and intended for 5? Again drastic change from what was intended.


You should take a look at some of Rees original designs and make fair judgments, if possible. I have a hard time believing someone who melts down when hearing Rees was hired to redesign UL without even seeing plans is capable of being fair, but it's worth a shot. Your missing out on at least SOME good golf!

[David Cronheim]

I've yet to hear anyone provide example of a classic club that experienced a major "success" by (whatever standard the club wishes to judge it) with Rees. On the opposite side of the coin, there have been plenty of us who have had firsthand experience at classic clubs that we feel made a major mistake by hiring Rees and provided those examples. I also echoed Corey's thoughts about what I felt was a total lack of professionalism in his presentation. Frankly, my impression was that he was a jerk.


I also made the point in my prior post that I thought his original designs were generally uninspired, but not awful. They're usually at very expensive, "exclusive" clubs in neighborhoods where most of us would prefer one of the neighbors. That said, there's a tremendous body of very poor results at classic clubs he's worked with. Additionally, the market certainly has spoken. What was the last high profile restoration job he landed? I can think of a lot more clubs that have had to hire someone else to rework Rees' work (Hollywood, Baltusrol, and Montclair in NJ all spring to mind).


This isn't a hatefest on Rees Jones by people who have heard he's not great. In my opinion the record demonstrates his work on classic courses is objectively quite poor.  He's got a record and it's not good, so questioning the decision by a classic club to engage him is reasonable.

[corey miller]

I do not have to look at Rees original designs to make fair judgments when it is his re-works that I am commenting on.  I hope his original stuff is better than his re-works.

[/size]I hardly consider it a melt down when someone comes on the site asking for information, and I give forthright and valid opinions on his re-works.  [size=78%]

[/size]Is it really a "melt-down" to ask what his best re-work is?  And BTW, I don't need to see the plans to understand what is coming but I would offer, for re-work stuff on a course I cared about, I would only hire a guy that I trust implicitly so I would not have to see any plans.  Do I need to edit Tom Doak?[size=78%]

[Mike Sweeney]

Hollywood is a good example of Doak vs Rees. Here is Ran's review from the Rees era of 2010:


http://golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/usa/hollywood-golf-club/


and here are Joe Bausch's pics from the post-Doak renovation:


http://myphillygolf.com/uploads/bausch/HollywoodGC/index3.html?


#4







#12




It would be nice if Tom could explain the cart/work path on #12, as I think that is new....

[Nick Ribeiro]

I do not have to look at Rees original designs to make fair judgments when it is his re-works that I am commenting on.  I hope his original stuff is better than his re-works.

I hardly consider it a melt down when someone comes on the site asking for information, and I give forthright and valid opinions on his re-works.  [size=78%]

[/size]Is it really a "melt-down" to ask what his best re-work is?  And BTW, I don't need to see the plans to understand what is coming but I would offer, for re-work stuff on a course I cared about, I would only hire a guy that I trust implicitly so I would not have to see any plans.  Do I need to edit Tom Doak?

[size=78%]


I have played a bunch of Doaks courses and enjoyed them as well. Tom def does his history homework and many of his restoration projects look very similar / exactly like historic photos he finds. I wonder if he interviewed for UL? I would guess not if its a redesign they are interested in considering I've never seen him do that type of work? Or at least personally do not know of any classic design he redesigned. Would he even be interested in such a project?


Is Rees such a bad guy for supplying a service the club asks for? I said in an earlier post Id rather see the course be restored also, the UL wants a redesign. That's not Rees fault...[/size]

[Nick Ribeiro]

Hollywood is a good example of Doak vs Rees. Here is Ran's review from the Rees era of 2010:


http://golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/usa/hollywood-golf-club/


and here are Joe Bausch's pics from the post-Doak renovation:


http://myphillygolf.com/uploads/bausch/HollywoodGC/index3.html?


#4







#12




It would be nice if Tom could explain the cart/work path on #12, as I think that is new....

I was there last fall and do not remember the cart path either. Also the bunkers didn't have fescue around them. Such a great hole!

[Nick Ribeiro]

I've yet to hear anyone provide example of a classic club that experienced a major "success" by (whatever standard the club wishes to judge it) with Rees. On the opposite side of the coin, there have been plenty of us who have had firsthand experience at classic clubs that we feel made a major mistake by hiring Rees and provided those examples. I also echoed Corey's thoughts about what I felt was a total lack of professionalism in his presentation. Frankly, my impression was that he was a jerk.


I also made the point in my prior post that I thought his original designs were generally uninspired, but not awful. They're usually at very expensive, "exclusive" clubs in neighborhoods where most of us would prefer one of the neighbors. That said, there's a tremendous body of very poor results at classic clubs he's worked with. Additionally, the market certainly has spoken. What was the last high profile restoration job he landed? I can think of a lot more clubs that have had to hire someone else to rework Rees' work (Hollywood, Baltusrol, and Montclair in NJ all spring to mind).


This isn't a hatefest on Rees Jones by people who have heard he's not great. In my opinion the record demonstrates his work on classic courses is objectively quite poor.  He's got a record and it's not good, so questioning the decision by a classic club to engage him is reasonable.

I would say back in the 90s the course considered a redesign to be a major success when the pros would come in and not completely stomp the course. That's why the goal was harder and thats how Rees became the "Open Doctor"... Times have changed and now its appropriate to take these courses back to 7500 yards, widen fairways, make greens bigger so they can roll 14-15, as long as Rees isnt the one who does it...

[Chris Mavros]

I think it's easy to nowadays say that Rees' re-works on classic courses were not successful, since trends in GCA have changed and most of those projects are now going in a different direction based on current trends.  Were they successful when they hosted US Opens?  Were they successful when those re designs begot other designs of the same ilk?  Maybe.  But claiming they were unsuccessful because many of them are being reworked currently is more an indication of style trends than anything else. 

Having said that, the link in one of the above replies that included the 2010 review of Hollywood seems to be positive for the work Rees did.  The review states Rees started to return the luster to the course, lengthened it and added back tees, which reduced the walking from green to tee and widened the course to regain its links feel.  I've never played Hollywood, but it seems this review is indicating Rees' work was a good thing? 

It was a different era for sure and I'm enjoying the era we're in more.  I'm just not willing to write it off and generalize anyone who was successful then.  There are others I would have preferred to re-design F/T if it's supposed to be restorative but I have no idea what they intend to do. 

There have been references to Rees committing architectural malpractice?  What specifically did he do?  I realize that he rubs some the wrong way but I've heard the same of other well known architects.  CB Macdonald was reputed for it, so perhaps personality does not correlate with architectural acumen yet is coloring some opinions?   

I'm interested to see what work will be done at F/T and will look upon it with a clean slate, free of any preconceived notions.

[JMEvensky]

I think it's easy to nowadays say that Rees' re-works on classic courses were not successful, since trends in GCA have changed and most of those projects are now going in a different direction based on current trends.
 

Apologies for lifting just a small part of your response but it seems to beg a question.


If Rees Jones' work was trendy then, does anyone foresee his work being restored 50 years from now? Isn't there a timelessness to Ross and other ODG's that's more than just another trend?

[Chris Mavros]

I think it's easy to nowadays say that Rees' re-works on classic courses were not successful, since trends in GCA have changed and most of those projects are now going in a different direction based on current trends.
 

Apologies for lifting just a small part of your response but it seems to beg a question.


If Rees Jones' work was trendy then, does anyone foresee his work being restored 50 years from now? Isn't there a timelessness to Ross and other ODG's that's more than just another trend?

Good point and I don't know how he gets treated moving forward.  But in terms of Ross, there are plenty of his courses that were changed and renovated over time, only now being worked towards his design traits.  F/T is a good example of moving back towards Ross recently (although I don't know where they're going moving forward) and Jeffersonville is another.  J-Ville was built in 1931 approx. and 70+ years went by before it was brought back.  Restoring to a designer's original intent seems like something that's become a lot more popular over the last 10 - 15 years, whereas before that I feel like courses were trying for something else.  Take Pinehurst 2.  Hosted US Open, was a top 10 US course with Rees work, then decided to go back to what it once was.  It was successful by many measures even though changed from Ross' design, but then returned to Ross recently.  I'm glad it did. 


And I don't know if it was Rees' work that was trendy then more than a certain style was trending that Rees marketed himself as providing and was successful at producing.  I also like to think that like other artful endeavors, an individual's style changes, even evolves.  Candidly, I belong to a club designed by Rees and to me, I believe it shows an evolved style from other I've played.  Whether that translates into an acceptable re-design at F/T for all of us is anyone's guess. 

[Alan FitzGerald CGCS MG]

Nick,


The difference I think you are seeking is in the method of taking design from construction.


To my knowledge, Rees Jones has never run a bulldozer on one of his projects and I highly doubt getting every hole to drain into the centerline of a hole corridor was marching orders from a client.

Kyle,


I was at a presentation Jim Nagle did the other day for CPGCSA on the relationship between a club and an architect for a successful project. One of his comments that resonated with me was the club deciding on what type of architect they wanted to hire - a dozer operator or a more tradition architect who provides plans and directs the construction. The point was that a good architect doesn't necessarily need to be a good dozer driver and a good dozer operator/shaper doesn't necessarily make a good architect.


I've seen this in the past and had the luxury of fixing the mess from the shaper/architect as he didn't get what was being asked of him (fwiw it wasn't Rees).


So to dismiss any architect because they can't run a dozer is unfair. Ultimately they should be judged on the work that was done.

[Alan FitzGerald CGCS MG]

I think it's easy to nowadays say that Rees' re-works on classic courses were not successful, since trends in GCA have changed and most of those projects are now going in a different direction based on current trends.
 

Apologies for lifting just a small part of your response but it seems to beg a question.


If Rees Jones' work was trendy then, does anyone foresee his work being restored 50 years from now? Isn't there a timelessness to Ross and other ODG's that's more than just another trend?

This is something I've been wondering for a while. When Rees, Fazio, Jack etc become the ODGs will we start to look on their designs like we do with the current ODGs? Will the manicured look come back into it's own in time? If you look at what was built in Ireland in the 90s/00s  - they love their American type courses even if the tourists want the traditional ones - will that happen in the US?


Personally I think trends change and in time courses will start to revert back to the more manicured look - it does work for Augusta! That's not to knock what Doak/Hanse/Crenshaw et al are doing as I think it looks great but I think Chris hit the spot in his post when he said that Rees built what was successful for his time -  even if that has fallen out of favor today. I don't ever recall anyone saying that Rees's courses were bad back when he was the Open Doctor and if they were, he would't have been successful and hired for those jobs.


On a side I've been involved with Rees for 14+ years as I work (grew-in) one of his courses. He has always been a complete gentleman in his interactions with me. I also got to see first hand his thoughts on design and what he looks for/wants. Prior to that I was led to believe he handed you a plan and that was it; however he (and his guys) actually put a lot of thought into his design and how he wanted it to play. I don't think a lot of people get to see this and it's a shame.


The pic above of 4 at Hollywood shows Rees's philosophy. He liked to give you an open option (like that concept or not) and have the course in front of you. He wasn't a fan of blind shots (unless he had to). His thoughts were to present you with the hole. If you played it straight and safe you were fine but if you didn't you'd then get in trouble. Personally I like that concept - but then again I'm a hacker at best...... The picture above sums that philosophy up - the front is open to invite you in and a hacker like me has a chance whereas the other is very penal unless you're dropping a ball in (although it looks awesome!).

[corey miller]

Alex

Rees Jones has two courses in the golfweek top 100 classic.  I suspect in fifty years they will not be restored to Rees regardless of what the trend of the day is.

I do believe the theory that "giving them what they want" and taking orders from the club decision makers is valid to a certain extent but do know many in these positions are not smart enough to know if they are getting what they want once they hire Rees. 

That said we can give him a pass on #4 at Hollywood for imparting his belief on the hole....and since you know his philosophy, what is up with the hedge behind the green?  Hard to tell how far back it is.  What I do know (having been involved in a project) is that most all members think it "protection" (not sure if a tee is back there) and others think "framing the hole" are valid devices. 

Glad you have had great experiences with Rees as a person.  Great guy. 

[mike_malone]

A friend of mine who recently joined the Union League played the course yesterday and said Mr. Jones followed him for six holes.


I wish them well.

[Nick Ribeiro]

A friend of mine who recently joined the Union League played the course yesterday and said Mr. Jones followed him for six holes.


I wish them well.

Mike, happen to know which 6 holes he spent some time on? Wondering if they are rerouting the holes by the vacant land between the course and academy road.

[Alan FitzGerald CGCS MG]

I do believe the theory that "giving them what they want" and taking orders from the club decision makers is valid to a certain extent but do know many in these positions are not smart enough to know if they are getting what they want once they hire Rees. 

That said we can give him a pass on #4 at Hollywood for imparting his belief on the hole....and since you know his philosophy, what is up with the hedge behind the green?  Hard to tell how far back it is.  What I do know (having been involved in a project) is that most all members think it "protection" (not sure if a tee is back there) and others think "framing the hole" are valid devices. 

Rees works with the clubs but ultimately won't do anything he doesn't want/agree with.


I've seen plenty of plantings used for protection - but as you said members want it as protection so how can Rees be blamed for that? We don't know if he wanted it (which I doubt) or if the club planted it themselves. A lot of plantings over the years have been from overzealous green committees not the architect.

[archie_struthers]

 


I distinctly remember playing in a qualifier at Torresdale in my youth and hitting it over the green on number one , a real no no .  Looking  at the next  shot ,  visions of double danced thru my mind! It was abundantly clear that nothing would keep my chip from rolling off the green and down to the bottom of a large hill save a miracle . Luckily the pin intervened and off to the second tee I walked , feeling like Willie Sutton.


Such was the legacy of Torresdale -Frankford, a gem of a golf course with a blue collar membership stuck in a bustling part of Philadelphia . Much like Pine Valley you couldn't believe it could be there. Hole after hole of beguiling greens and interesting angles and yes , a lot of quirk . Love it !  Despite a lack of conditioning over the years the greatness still shone thru and now that it  is well funded it can be even better.


Hopefully the Union League will see the light and restore restore restore . As Mike C says adding distance is fine but a redo isn't needed . Stephen K started  the ball rolling in the right direction !

p.s.   There is a nice video Stephen Kay talking about his work perhaps someone can google same and post

[Nick Ribeiro]

Hopefully the Union League will see the light and restore restore restore . As Mike C says adding distance is fine but a redo isn't needed . Stephen K started  the ball rolling in the right direction !

p.s.   There is a nice video Stephen Kay talking about his work perhaps someone can google same and post

Which holes do you suggest they just push tees back? What if the goal of the membership is an 8,000 yard course? Is a redo still not necessary?


These clubs today are fighting to be the first to stay relevant to the next generation of golfers. You have kids in there late teens hitting the ball over 300 yards, what will they do in 10 years with growth and 10 more years of technology advancement? I think there are many "redesigns" coming our way.

[corey miller]

Based on the insightful comments of those that seem to know the project best, the Union League clearly made the right choice.


 
[/font][/font][/size]

[archie_struthers]

 


Nick , good question🤔


For me there are certain things in golf as in life that should be sacrosanct.  All of us have different priorities as to what is most important. For instance I’m ok with hats on or off in the bar depending on my hosts preference or club rules . I’m ok with listening to an iPod while playing , as long as you keep pace and are still part of the banter that makes rounds of golf with friends special . I’m in the minority on many things but ok with going along with the majority of it’s not offensive .




In Golf architecture I am of the mind set that certain places are special , Torresdale being one of them . It has such unique design and lots of quirk , something I’ve grown to appreciate more and more !  Given its history it would be a pity to lose some of the interesting design features that make it so different . I’m a fan of architects individually but certainly don’t deify them . So you are right in saying that changes may have to come with time .




However in the case of Torresdale , you need be real careful not to make it just another golf course , fancy or not !

[Joe Bausch]

However in the case of Torresdale , you need be real careful not to make it just another golf course , fancy or not !

I will be very sad if lots of dirt is moved in the coming months at Torresdale.