Current Trends in Classic Course Renovation

[Tom_Doak]

It seems to me that an architect is the only person standing in the way of committees ruining golf courses. I am not sure why an architect subjects himself to member owned clubs. Just standing in the way is a service to the game.

Historians as well, particularly of ‘their own’ club. Then-n-now comparisons especially in photographic form, including those of past screw-ups, can be pretty persuasive tools in making members sit up and take interest.
Atb

There are some great club historians. 


But sometimes they, too, can become too strident in their lobbying for certain old features that may have been abandoned for good reason, or for making changes on the grounds of "this is what [architect x] would do today".

[Tom_Doak]

It seems to me that an architect is the only person standing in the way of committees ruining golf courses. I am not sure why an architect subjects himself to member owned clubs. Just standing in the way is a service to the game.

When I started doing consulting work, it seemed like that was one of the main parts of the job ... convincing clubs they didn't need to make a bunch of changes to keep up, and that maybe doing so in the past had been precisely the cause of their troubles.


Now the situation has flipped totally on its head, as Terry has aptly described.  I find myself trying to tap the brakes on clubs wanting to make all sorts of changes, in the name of restoration.


I always saw the work as a public service to the game, and good karma for the future preservation of my own courses.  But it doesn't look like there are many other designers who see it that way, because more of their income depends on endless "restoration".

[corey miller]

Tom

All my opinion but I am skeptical the extent to which a club needs a "name" architect or any architect  to do the majority of the work:tree clearing, mowing lines, green expansion. Shouldn't a Superintendent be able to sell this?
[/size]
[/size]Since the answer to the prior question is probably "no" because those three changes are precisely the changes that the membership will disagree with the most
[/size]
[/size]We then hire "architects" that find it easier to sell the main three restorative needs (trees, mowing, greens size) if they jazz them up with other grandiose bells and whistles that the membership will accept because they provide all the bells and whistles?
[/size]
[/size]I have seen two "restoration plans" (I use the term very loosely) for my course and always thought the "bad" plan which was a laundry list of crap designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator was an easier "sell" to the club than the more modest plan which was more focused on trees, lines, greens.

[/size]Sorry for the cynicism, I know you operate differently. 
[/size]

[Tom_Doak]

Tom

All my opinion but I am skeptical the extent to which a club needs a "name" architect or any architect  to do the majority of the work:tree clearing, mowing lines, green expansion. Shouldn't a Superintendent be able to sell this?

I have seen two "restoration plans" (I use the term very loosely) for my course and always thought the "bad" plan which was a laundry list of crap designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator was an easier "sell" to the club than the more modest plan which was more focused on trees, lines, greens.

Sorry for the cynicism, I know you operate differently. 

Corey:


I think we're on the same page.  Yes, the superintendent could and should be able to oversee many of the things that architects are being hired for today.  It seems like no one can even replace the sand in their bunkers without selling it as a million-dollar restoration.


I always thought that one appeal of an architect is that superintendents are compromised by having their job depend on the green chairman's approval -- but, it turns out, most architects are similarly compromised !

[PCCraig]

Terry,

Interesting topic.

There are quite a few restorations/renovations happening these days at private clubs, which are no doubt tied to the good economy and the resulting higher than usual membership rolls willing to either take on debt or assess.

But even despite the good economy, there seem to be less and less people (in particular young people) willing to join a golf club. So in breeds the arms race.

One trend I really don't understand is the regrassing one. There is a club up here in Minnesota that has a similar lineage as yours that is spending a massive amount of $$ to regrass their fairways and greens to rid the course of poa. It was a hot topic and a very close vote by the membership. It's obviously their club, but I really don't understand what possesses smart people to want to spend a massive amount of money so that their greens run an extra foot and a half on the stimpmeter.  Not to mention the poa is destined to come back eventually, no? I'm not sure it's a sustainable trend.

I don't understand the trend for these perfect, huge, bunkers with (nearly always) white sand. It's a hazard. They look much better when rough around the edges and as its a hazard there should be the element of an awkward lie.

I don't mind the trend of additional short grass around greens. It sure helps golfers like my wife get around the course by being able to roll up or putt their ball toward the hole. It's probably reaching the point where architects/memberships are reaching too hard to put shortgrass everywhere, but it's probably not the worst trend.

[SL_Solow]

One point to consider on the bent v poa , particularly on greens.  How often does the club have significant period of high temperatures?  At our club in the Chicago suburbs, our Washington bent greens (a wonderful surface) had been overtaken by poa. Root depths in the mid summer usually shrunk to depths of less than an inch.  We were practically growing grass hydroponically.  Even with a talented Super, it was difficult to achieve speed and smoothness.  Each hot spell, we fought to keep our greens.  So we bit the bullet.  Our first step was to pound a lot of sand into the greens.  We added XGD for our drainage.  Then we gassed and regrassed with an A1/A4 mix.  9 years later we have great surfaces with deep roots.  Other clubs interested in the process have come to see what we did and several have followed. We have very little poa as we are aggressive in our efforts to keep it out/remove it.  Our members are very happy and, to the extent we spend money on maintenance, the yearly extra expenditures during hot periods have all but disappeared.  Fairways have a different calculus.

[Thomas Dai]

It seems to me that an architect is the only person standing in the way of committees ruining golf courses. I am not sure why an architect subjects himself to member owned clubs. Just standing in the way is a service to the game.

Historians as well, particularly of ‘their own’ club. Then-n-now comparisons especially in photographic form, including those of past screw-ups, can be pretty persuasive tools in making members sit up and take interest.
Atb

There are some great club historians. 
But sometimes they, too, can become too strident in their lobbying for certain old features that may have been abandoned for good reason, or for making changes on the grounds of "this is what [architect x] would do today".

Fair point Tom.
Easy to become too strident. I might like the idea of how some courses once were but I reckon I’d prefer to drive to the course in an air-conditioned hybrid car, wear waterproof golf shoes, play with a golf ball that stays round and not have to put coal on the clubhouse fire to stay warm after a round!
Atb

[PThomas]

The phrase “ leave well enough alone” springs to mind, esp, as you say, if the proposed work will look like work recently done at other clubs

[Ian Andrew]

Private Clubs are far too often run like sports teams

The great ones stay the course while the remainder just make lots of changes without really changing who they are.

[Tom_Doak]

Private Clubs are far too often run like sports teams

The great ones stay the course while the remainder just make lots of changes without really changing who they are.

That's funny.  And dead on.