What should be the purpose of a renovation or restoration?

[Jerry Kluger]

Should a restoration's purpose be to put the course back to the way it was when it was built or should it be how the course would be if it had been built today.  How would Tillinghast or Raynor or Ross, etc. have designed their courses today - what would they look like and how would they play?  There were so many limitations 100 or so years ago as they did not have the equipment or the materials that we have today.  We could all speculate that they would identify more with the minimalist movement but would that be because they were often not in a position to move a whole of dirt to carry out their design.  Say they now have the ability to move as much dirt as they want and they can use all types of grasses to achieve their goals.

[Tom_Doak]

Jerry:


It is of course up to each club to decide what they are trying to do in a restoration.


Any of the approaches you describe are valid, but there is only one of them that’s not based on smooth talking jive.  Unless you think your consulting architect is better than Tillinghast or Raynor or Ross, you’d be foolish to give them a lot of leeway to project what those guys *might* have done.

[Jerry Kluger]

Tom: By what they might have done can include how they would have positioned bunkers, etc., based upon today's ball/equipment but also conditioning and how they would have the course play.  Too many courses are winding up so much greener and softer than those designers would ever had thought was possible.  I am not historian of how golf architects but how did their designs and their philosophies change over their careers? Once an architect has established himself does he really change that much of how he views a course should look and play? Of course topography as well as climate and soil, etc., will play a factor that will partly determine what is best for the design but on similar terrain, etc., how much difference will there be? 

[Tom_Doak]

Jerry:


When someone starts speculating like your last post I am reminded of the classic Saturday Night Live skit:  What if Spartacus had had a B-52?


Most of your questions rely on speculation and I’m just not a speculator.  I can restore a course as it was built, or you can trust me to use my best judgment to change it, but pretending I know what Mackenzie would have done is just p.r. (or b.s.)

[Ally Mcintosh]

It really should be simple.


Restoration = put back things in same position with same looks (technical make-up may be slightly more advanced / different)


Renovation = bunker positions and tee positions moved. New style changes are included in here.


Redesign = greens or routing changes.


Things like tree clearance and mowing lines can fall in to restoration or renovation bucket dependent.


If every club used the above as definitions, it would stop the smoke and mirrors and everyone could be clear about the drivers behind each project.

[Adam Lawrence]

It is impossible to know what an architect of the past would have done if transported to a site today.


QED a 'What Would X Have Done' is not only not restoration, it is a con job. If you're renovating, be honest about it.

[Thomas Dai]

Sometimes a lack of £/$ can be no bad thing.
Mowing lines and trees first (using old photos that clubs likely have somewhere in a box or an archive), other things if necessary later.
Atb

[Mark_Fine]

Jerry,
If you can answer the following question it might help matters.  Why did the original architect design the course the way he or she did in the first place?  If you have no idea (which is what most are saying in the posts so far - how would they know what some past architect was thinking) then how would you know what they would do now?

[Ally Mcintosh]

Sometimes a lack of £/$ can be no bad thing.
Mowing lines and trees first (using old photos that clubs likely have somewhere in a box or an archive), other things if necessary later.
Atb

Lack of dollars is actually an excellent way to work, especially on sand and as long as the client understands that certain low budget methodologies can carry a little more risk.


Forces both design decisions and construction phasing to be really thought out to provide value.


Getting rid of trees is not always low budget though.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I will offer my typically contrarian view based on what I see "out in the wild."


IMHO, spending any money on a course ought to be with an eye to the future.  Most renovations start with either infrastructure issues, i.e., "if your superintendent is fixing the irrigation more than running it, it may be time to renovate" or "if your crew is spending more time shoveling sand bunkers than raking them, it may be time to renovate, and that just to keep your course functioning so you can stay in business."


Others are driven by revenue issues, i.e., "If your tee sheets aren't as full as your comparable courses, can renovation help fill them?"  And, most courses shouldn't take that mantra at face value, as when golf is down, even the best renovations might not bring in golfers, and sometimes, it's a function of market saturation more than design.


Granted, there are some classic courses with pedigree architects that have successfully become wildly popular after restorations.  However, there are probably as many or more that have garnered renewed golfer interest by going the "New and Improved Tide" route.  I suspect that every local market is a bit different, with the NE and all its classic courses sort of setting the standard there, but places like Texas have always had a different culture, often more rooted in modernism.  Or, try to find a design that is unique in your market and/or one that will appeal to local golfers who will make up the bulk of the play/memberships.


In other words, if your course which hasn't changed its look in a long time isn't drawing members/golfers, what's to say putting it back that way is going to draw more?  For some courses, looking like the course down the street might be a better design brief than looking like the course you originally were.


I will also grant that for most courses, it's hard to impose a whole new style.  For one thing, older courses tend to be smaller scale, and it does take tree removal to build bigger and better modern styles, as they tend to take more room.  Of course, tree removal is often a good thing as well.


Short version, follow the money, wherever that takes you.

[Mark_Fine]

Good post Jeff! 


Call it whatever you want but I have never met an architect or a committee,…. that wasn’t trying to make the golf course better with the changes or “restorations” they were making.  But that is really what we should be debating - what constitutes improvements?  What some think are improvements, others think are the exact opposite.


By the way, there are “a few” good books out there written by architect’s about design philosophies and design intent, etc.  Ever hear of Golf Architecture in America for example by George Thomas?  He actually explains what he was thinking when he and others designed golf holes.  Apparently he wanted others to understand he wasn’t just winging it and why he did what he did so others didn't have to guess!   

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mark,


So true, sometimes those here imply that old timers didn't have good intentions. At that time, the "trend" was modernization.  As I have explained, I give them the benefits of the doubt.  First off, many Ross and other Golden Age courses were in fact modernizations of earlier designs.  Second, with a 15 year gap in golf work, modernization was probably necessary, and third, all fields of design in Post WWII were into modernizations.  Who are we to doubt the "greatest generation?"


In this "Big World" of modern golf course architecture, you can probably find anyone to tell you that anything you propose is an improvement, so it seems wise to choose wisely.  But, is it a case of choosing Fox News or CNN, that you are really looking for someone who echos your preconceived views?  And, since we know from the tree house on the tree program thread, you can't trust the committee with these kinds of things, then maybe we can't trust them to pick the best architect for their ownselves.

[Tim Martin]

Jerry-I like Tom Doak’s reply from post # 1. That said if a routing was previously changed or greens blown up/moved and can’t be reestablished then I wonder if renovation is really the only term that applies? Most would be comfortable to have a group like Renaissance Golf Design renovate “in the style of” the original architect as their interpretation could be well conveyed before a shovel meets the dirt.

[Terry Lavin]

I’m seeing a lot of what I have dubbed “trend-ovation,” where you wind up seeing a lot of the same kind of revisions, like new back tees on a few holes, fescue planted throughout the course, relocated bunkers, and the semi- obligatory green-to-tee walk offs, along with a lot of short grass runoffs around the greens where there used to be rough grass.


I see a lot of self-fulfilled “keeping up with the Joneses” where clubs, directed by architects doll up a golf course with as many of the new, hip course alterations so that clubs can remain relevant.


This may sound overly critical, but I’m just trying to observe and report. The courses that have gone this route here in Chicago are all much more interesting and more challenging, even if they tend to start looking like a lot of other re-tuned courses in one’s particular area.

[Jerry Kluger]

I really believe that when we spend some time looking at a hole we can see what, if any, strategy is best for playing the hole and I believe that is exactly what the architect wanted us to do.  I am not saying that is always the case but very often it is and when a current architect is hired to renovate or restore the hole(s) the architect should keep that in mind. Of course this should not mean that there is a stereotypical hole or green, etc. for each architect.  Donald Ross designed hundreds of golf courses and how can we say that there are "typical" Ross greens?  I remember reading in George Bahto's book on CB Macdonald that his original "cape hole" was not what eventually became a cape hole and only happened because of the relocation of the green.  I don't know that I can actually refine what I am trying to say but I am trying to get to looking at how you envision the hole should have played and how it should play now.

[Jim_Coleman]

   This conversation has the smell of a constitutional argument. Should a restoration attempt to return a course to exactly as it was 100 years ago? Should the constitution be interpreted by figuring out exactly what men 250 years ago meant when they wrote the document? Or, are a golf course and a constitution intended to adapt and change with the times? You can have Scalia, Thomas and Doak.  I’ll take Warren, RBG and Brauer.

[mike_malone]

 I have arrived at the view that restoration is only for a very select few courses where it’s very clear that the original was outstanding. The archival evidence is strong.




 The restored course needs to stand up to modern golf once completed and the status of the restored course should rise.


It isn’t about going back. It’s about recovering a better course.


If these things aren’t true then have at with whatever you think should be done.

[Mike_Young]

For 98% of the members they could care less about the architecture of the course.  That's the first thing people need to understand.  Give them good greens, raked bunkers and short tees and they think the architecture is fine.  So for most they don't know what they don't know ,so bullshit them anyway you wish as to whether it is a reno or a resto or whatever.
For so many architects the reno/resto purpose is to work until they have new courses to do.  Notice how many less reno/resto there were when new courses were rolling.
For supts. reno/resto are desired for resumes....
For vendors it's about continuing to convince clubs that only the most expensive will work either in irrigation, bunker lining, drainage, greens construction or cart path.
AND for the member IMHO most reno/resto is because the course down the road did it or they wish to be the first to do it...The club consultants of the world have convinced the unknowing boards that only a reno/resto will allow them to survive into the future and it can be afforded via assessments and/or new members...
But in the end just fix the damn golf course....the reno/resto is just a term used to convince a club they have lost something...the club doesn't know the difference...

[Jim_Coleman]

Mike:  Brilliant. With one caveat - if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[Peter Pallotta]

It really should be simple.

Restoration = put back things in same position with same looks (technical make-up may be slightly more advanced / different)

Renovation = bunker positions and tee positions moved. New style changes are included in here.

Redesign = greens or routing changes.

Things like tree clearance and mowing lines can fall in to restoration or renovation bucket dependent.

If every club used the above as definitions, it would stop the smoke and mirrors and everyone could be clear about the drivers behind each project.

Mike Y is a seasoned and very successful professional; I'm not even an informed amateur. But to me, Ally's post seems like a very good one: it provides plausible/defensible definitions of 'the work' that should be crystal clear to everyone, except those with a vested interest in muddying the waters.

But what the post doesn't do (and Ally didn't intend it to) is answer the OP's main question, i.e. what is the main purpose (and intention) that drives 'the work', e.g.

Do the club members-architects intend to leave well enough alone, and simply put Humpty Dumpty back together again? Or do they actually want to change/alter many things about Humpty Dumpty, but insist on keeping his name/memory alive? Or do they want to erase Humpty Dumpty altogether ("I don't even know who the f-ck he is!") and create a brand new character, one more in keeping with the modern age than some slug who just sits on a wall.

What the club members want/intend will tell us what the architect's main purpose is, and that in turn will provide us the correct term to use (as per Ally's post), i.e. Restoration, Renovation, and Redesign respectively.

As I say, it should all be crystal clear. The reason it isn't, it seems to me, is because most times neither the members nor the architects want to let the cat out of the bag, re: main purpose-intentions.

[Mark_Fine]

Come on Mike Young, it is not all BS and smoke and mirrors.  I respect your experience and expertise but not every architect is a used car salesman (are they)? 


Forrest and I interviewed together yesterday for a new restoration/renovation project.  Trust me, if you saw the golf course - it needs work.  It has an interesting pedigree and actually a noteworthy original architect but the course isn’t worry of pure “restoration” and we told them so flat out.  There was no BS and we aren’t seeking the job to keep busy or hold us over between projects.  The place needs work and the membership knows it.  If you heard the stories the selection committee told us during the interview about how the course /holes got changed you would just laugh.  Nothing was surprising because Forrest and I have heard them all before - why trees got planted, how an influential member felt a hole needed framing, why one past club President added bunkers to certain areas to help penalize his opponents who he was losing bets to, how greens shrunk, …,  the list goes on.


The course has real issues (beyond just maintenance challenges) and needs a renovation that is in the best interest of the membership.  It also has some interesting original design aspects that have been lost for various reasons that “might” make sense to restore as part of the process but only because as Mike Malone stated it would help bring back/recover a better golf hole.  There is no BS here.  Why would you call every restoration or renovation BS?  It is disrespectful for those of us who are trying to help a club enhance the value of their main asset and the value of the playing experience for their members.  And the proof of success in all these restorations/renovations is in the end result.  There is no smoke and mirrors.  The end result is either better in the eyes of the golfers who play there or it isn’t. 


Where I agree with you and I said this myself many times in the past is very few golfers care about or understand the history/architecture of a golf course.  But most do know the difference between a good playing experience and a bad one.  At the end of the day, if you as the architect can help a club enhance their asset (call the project what you want), most golfers will benefit even if they don’t exactly understand why.  That is not BS 

[Kalen Braley]

50 years from now when all of us are gone, assuming this site is still a going concern and society as we know it is still around...

I can foresee an enterprising person in the business using this website and the myriad of published books for justification to convince a board that they know the mind of <Insert architect name>, and as such are qualified to improve/update/restore/renovate their course.

[Mike_Young]

Mike:  Brilliant. With one caveat - if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

That's my complaint..often it is not broken but just needs detailing...and yet to so many boards that is considered cheap because they interpret " mo money, mo betta"

[Mike_Young]

I’m seeing a lot of what I have dubbed “trend-ovation,” where you wind up seeing a lot of the same kind of revisions, like new back tees on a few holes, fescue planted throughout the course, relocated bunkers, and the semi- obligatory green-to-tee walk offs, along with a lot of short grass runoffs around the greens where there used to be rough grass.


I see a lot of self-fulfilled “keeping up with the Joneses” where clubs, directed by architects doll up a golf course with as many of the new, hip course alterations so that clubs can remain relevant.


This may sound overly critical, but I’m just trying to observe and report. The courses that have gone this route here in Chicago are all much more interesting and more challenging, even if they tend to start looking like a lot of other re-tuned courses in one’s particular area.

TL,But your course is worthy and one of my top 5...  The clubs around the country like Club Pro Guy's Three Jack National and The Buttsy's Hardwood Hills are BS'ed by the word Reno and Resto....

[Mike_Young]

Come on Mike Young, it is not all BS and smoke and mirrors.   

 There is no BS here.  Why would you call every restoration or renovation BS?  It is disrespectful for those of us who are trying to help a club enhance the value of their main asset and the value of the playing experience for their members.  And the proof of success in all these restorations/renovations is in the end result.  There is no smoke and mirrors.  The end result is either better in the eyes of the golfers who play there or it isn’t. 
I THINK YOU MAY BE PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH

FOR MOST CLUBS, IT'S ABOUT MAKING MONEY....this sort of explains it for me:EASTBOUND and DOWN
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=De7rbB2bteE