RTJ Jr. on Nostalgia, Oakland Hills

[Tim Gallant]

I sort of see where RTJ Jr is coming from. Probably before the last 20 years, the course's trademark and brand was in the fact that it was labelled a monster, a tough golf course that was in part due to the work his father carried out. I talk a lot about preserving history, but what happens when you have history on top of history (ie - an RTJ renovated course that carved its own history, on top of a Ross original)? At the moment, the default is to revert to a Golden Age history, but some courses might 'restore' at the expense of more recent history. No one can ever go play the exact course that Hogan played to make that claim, which is maybe what RTJ Jr was getting at?


Now, before the pitchforks come after me - I'll caveat by saying personally, I think in Oakland Hills' case, it seems like they made the right decision as restoring older history will give a playing experience that is in line with how golfers want their course to play in today's era (more variety, fun, etc). Also, I believe Rees did some work, so it's not as if the 'Monster' that Hogan encountered, was still there for 100% preservation.


But I do see his point that there is a history that one day we might want to wish we had preserved. I just think it's more important to preserve the best original designs from that era, even if we don't think they're worth much at the moment...

[Erik J. Barzeski]

RTJ Jr.'s use of the word nostalgia strikes me as deliberate, delivered with a clear tone of condescension, intended to demean Gil and all other architects working today who carry out renovation work with a respect for the past rather than turning a blind eye to the original architect the way he and his father did.

I can't speak to the work his father did in the 40s or whenever that was, but I felt similarly (hence this topic) about the way he talked.

The  thread is yours and I leave with this question. If an architect "restores" a golf course to an earlier time, say 1929,  but keeps some elements from a 1950's"renovation" performed by a different architect, what do you call that?

Doesn't that just get into the old conversation about design credit? How much work is required — particularly given the routing remains — before you can take partial or even headliner credit on the design?

I sort of see where RTJ Jr is coming from. Probably before the last 20 years, the course's trademark and brand was in the fact that it was labelled a monster, a tough golf course that was in part due to the work his father carried out.

Seeing as how no high-level (PGA, U.S. Open) championship has been held since it was renovated, who is to say it will not be just as much of a monster while being a bit more playable day-to-day for the members?

[Kalen Braley]

I wonder how that interview would have went if an architect had been called in to restore one his dad's course that had been significantly changed over the years...

P.S.  When did the tree house start hanging on every word spoken by past legends of the game?  Jones, Hogan, Palmer, Player, etc...since when did their architecture opinions matter?  Hogan was no doubt one of the greatest players ever, but why does it matter if he dubbed OH the Monster? 

[Michael Chadwick]

Michael,
RTJ and GH worked in different eras and their styles are not similar. If they traded places in time do you think they'd be doing the same work?


When you tell me you know what a long dead architect would recognize should he return, then you've had a little too much kool aid in my opinion.


The  thread is yours and I leave with this question. If an architect "restores" a golf course to an earlier time, say 1929,  but keeps some elements from a 1950's"renovation" performed by a different architect, what do you call that? How does all that fit into your narrative.  I'll give you my answer, if the architect thinks it makes it better and the client agrees, then I believe its a good decision. Makes it difficult to slap a label on it, and it probably won't be a talking point, but in the end no matter what you describe the work as, it's the architect's job to improve the golf course. I am interested in hearing your answer.

Don, thanks. I've enjoyed our debate and I too agree it's time for it to end, partly because I don't think we're focusing on the same points for argument any more. I'm not going to answer your trading places question, not because it's speculative, but I said in a previous comment that I'm not judging RTJ Sr. whatsoever for the motivations or rationale for the actions he took as an architect. My interest has been comparing RTJ Sr. and Gil's relationship to original architects in renovation work.


I didn't tell you that I know what a past designer thinks. In my example about whether Ross would recognize today's OH South as his own more so now than how the course appeared before Hanse's work, I used the word belief. And I do believe he'd favor Hanse's iteration over RTJ Sr.'s.


I'll answer your final question since you've requested it, but I find it connected to the point I conceded to you in my previous reply regarding your dissatisfaction with the terminology of restoration. It doesn't much bother me whether it's called renovation or restoration, I'm again more interested in how the hired architect either enhanced or diminished the work done by the course's original architect. In your example I'd describe it as: a restoration based from 1929 that retained elements from a 1950s renovation performed by a different architect.   


Appreciate you taking the time to discuss over multiple replies.

But I do see his point that there is a history that one day we might want to wish we had preserved. I just think it's more important to preserve the best original designs from that era, even if we don't think they're worth much at the moment...

Tim--good point! I think this entire discussion would and should be different if Peachtree or Hazeltine National were to hire someone not in the Jones family to completely transform their course. That would be an erasure of history, whereas Oakland Hills decided to excavate/recover/restore/renovate (pick your synonym) an iteration of their original Ross history.     

[Ben Hollerbach]

Jeff, has a notable RTJ Sr. original design ever been completely redone by anyone not in his family? Nothing comes to mind for me, but I could be mistaken.

Michael,
Off the top of my head, Congressional and Shady Oaks. Hopefully Mike Clayton can pop in and comment on the missions behind their redesign at Shady Oaks.

[Kyle Harris]

It’s rare that a thread proves every contradictory point correct by the nature of the contradiction, yet, here we are.


In four page the close-mindedness AND the open-mindedness is shown by people attempting to uphold the opposite.


Big world, indeed.


I haven’t played an RTJ, Sr. original that I don’t wish to return to.

[Sean_A]

I sort of see where RTJ Jr is coming from. Probably before the last 20 years, the course's trademark and brand was in the fact that it was labelled a monster, a tough golf course that was in part due to the work his father carried out. I talk a lot about preserving history, but what happens when you have history on top of history (ie - an RTJ renovated course that carved its own history, on top of a Ross original)? At the moment, the default is to revert to a Golden Age history, but some courses might 'restore' at the expense of more recent history. No one can ever go play the exact course that Hogan played to make that claim, which is maybe what RTJ Jr was getting at?


Now, before the pitchforks come after me - I'll caveat by saying personally, I think in Oakland Hills' case, it seems like they made the right decision as restoring older history will give a playing experience that is in line with how golfers want their course to play in today's era (more variety, fun, etc). Also, I believe Rees did some work, so it's not as if the 'Monster' that Hogan encountered, was still there for 100% preservation.


But I do see his point that there is a history that one day we might want to wish we had preserved. I just think it's more important to preserve the best original designs from that era, even if we don't think they're worth much at the moment...

Absolutely. Oakland Hills is mostly famous for the Ben Hogan Monster narrative and the continuation of that narrative for future major championships. But that narrative is somewhat false and it has the benefit of recency bias. I recall it took some doing to convince the membership to approve the plan in part because the Monster would be erased, but the narrative will still exist.

I was never fond of the Monster. Unbelievable set of greens and wonderful terrain, but the Monster characteristics of high rough and pinch bunkers robbed the course of its full compliment of playing characteristics.

At the end of day, Oakland Hills is famous championship venue. If the USGA/PGA continue to call upon OH it will remain famous. Not many clubs have hosted more high profile events.

Ciao

[Ben Hollerbach]

This is an interesting topic:

I think back of an Architectural Design class I took in college, (best elective class ever).  We studied building types from various eras all the way from classical Greek and Roman to modern styles, and while most were appealing the 1950's cold, sterile, concrete buildings in general were fairly off-putting to my senses.  The style, known as Brutalist Architecture, seems apropos, with many fugly structures like this:

And when i think of RTJ golf courses, which correlate to the same period, they tend to evoke the same kind of response...once again just to my eye as I've only seen his stuff primarily in pictures. But as always there are exceptions like Spyglass, as with structures, such as this, which is nothing short of amazingly beautiful.

It would be one thing if Brutalism was the only architecture style present in post-war times, or even the most prominent. But it wasn't. Ignoring a prolific style such as Mid-Century Modern or even Frank Lloyd Wright Usonian style is being disingenuous to the time and place.

In the same way of trying to associate modern minimalism architecture:


with modern minimalism golf course architecture:

[Jim Hoak]

When I read about people objecting to restorations at golf courses on historical/nostalgia grounds, I always think they are missing one very important fact--No golf course stays the same forever.  They are living, changing, evolving entities.  Grass and trees grow; sand dunes shift, wind blows material around, ground shifts and slides, etc.  So the idea that restoration itself changes a course is wrong--it may just be restoring what nature has already changed.  I think maybe RTJ Jr. misses that point.

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

Sean A brings up an interesting point on the Oakland Hills membership, not everyone did want it to be or stay "Monstered".  My grandfather along with friends joined at some point in the 30's to help save the club. They also switched the Cranbrook school dances from their primary club, Bloomfield Hills to Oakland Hills to help it survive. One member of the group, Mr. Wilson, had an ulterior goal because it was an executive benefit for his executives at GM.  My grandfather left sometime before or after the Open.  Considering that he was a rather poor golfer in spite of playing at least 5 times week, he preferred playing his other less challenging clubs.

[Kalen Braley]

Ben,

I'm not sure if you're being serious.  Frank Lloyd Write designed virtually his entire portfolio prior to WW2 and he passed in the 1950s, as the brutalist period was just going main stream. His body of work far better aligns to the Pre-Golden Age of golf if we're going to try to draw that line.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Frank_Lloyd_Wright_works

But sure there will always be exceptions, but Brutalism was by far and away the rule of the time period with structures literally being built in this style all over the world. 

[Ben Hollerbach]

Kalen,

The Usonian style may have been FLW's greatest gift to architecture. It was a design mentality that was more suited to the every day suburban home and became a template that other architects followed after his death. Thus why I specifically mentioned it in my comment and did not speak of his entire career.
Brutalism on the other hand is a specific design style who's term is often misappropriated to describe other designs. Often those designs who significantly utilized exposed concrete in their construction are classified as brutalist when they may not be. While it was most commonly seen in municipal and educational buildings, it was rarely the style of residential construction, especially single family home. At a time when large portions of the US population were moving out of the cities and into the suburbs, they were not moving into brutalist homes.

Now, why did I focus on residential suburban design? for 2 reasons. 1, the majority of architecture that is constructed and that we interact with on a daily basis is residential. 2, Post war golf courses were not build in the cities.

[Kalen Braley]

Ben,

Thanks for the clarification, I certainly agree with all of that. 

In my mind, I was associating larger buildings as you mentioned as big scale projects, much like a golf course, that take years to complete from inception to opening day...as opposed to residential dwellings that are built far more abundantly and much quicker.