When should a renovation/restoration be considered a redesign?

[Ben Hollerbach]

At what point during a renovation of a golf course are the alterations significant enough that it should no longer be credited, or solely credited, to the previous architect?

For example:
When George Cobb was tasked with updating East Lake in preparation of the 1963 Ryder Cup He moved the green sites on 8 holes and the tee boxes on 4 holes. He also changing the bunkering and consolidating the summer and winter greens on the other 11 holes. The playing corridors for 13 holes on the previous routing were preserved.

Was there enough change in 1963 to say that the course was no longer a Bendelow / Ross should have been credited as a Cobb redesign?

[Ally Mcintosh]

I think it’s very different to classify something as a redesign and then credit both old & new…. Vs calling something a redesign with only credit to the new.


St. Patricks is an example of the latter but by that point, it is no longer a redesign, it is a new course.


Can’t think of too many examples of a redesign that doesn’t credit the original architect (unless it’s for marketing smoke & mirrors because the new architect is a bigger pull than the old).

[Tommy Williamsen]

I’ve played a few “redesigns” this summer. They changed the routing and moved greens. Nothing of the original was left. I played another that kept the routing but completely redesigned the greens and bunker placement. Not sure what to call that one.

[Tom_Doak]

There are so many possible scenarios that I’m not sure any simple rule can be written.


I guess the real question is, what’s the motivation of the new designer?  Is he trying to keep the best pieces of the previous course, or just using what he has to?  On tree-lined sites it is difficult if not crazy to try and change the hole corridors too much, but that doesn’t mean the original routing was that great, just that nobody wants to cut down the trees that have been planted.


From my work:


Atlantic City tweaked the routing and changed a lot of features, but kept five holes +/- intact.


At Medinah #1 we were encouraged to start over but certain features like the par-3 18th were kept because no better solution was found.


At the National in Australia we kept only the first and last holes and changed most of the rest, including finding a bunch of new green sites.

[Wade Whitehead]

https://www.philosophy-foundation.org/enquiries/view/the-ship-of-theseus

WW

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ben,


To answer a little more specifically than my last post, I think re-design usually comes in elements rather than the whole.


You are re-designing (Vs renovating) when you are:


- Changing the routing skeleton of the course
- Rebuilding greens with a completely different design to what they replace (even if in situ)
- Re-doing the whole course bunker scheme (position & style) as opposed to moving a few bunkers to update for the modern game.


There is a minimum amount of the above that needs to be done before credit should be shared with the original architect. That amount is probably a lot more for - say - you or me than it is for - say - Tom. Nothing to do with what he does. Just logical marketing on behalf of the client, isn’t it?


There is an enormous amount that would need to be done before the original architect is eradicated from credit. My take is that more than 50% of the routing corridors would need to be completely changed (not just tweaked for angles). It would need to be substantially a new course.

[Adrian_Stiff]

I think when more than three greens/holes are rebuilt in new positions. There are no rules as no one has ever made them. There should always be first credit to the man that did the first work unless someone wipes the lot.


I think architects should get together and decide a set of rules.

[Ben Hollerbach]

Would any of these not be consider a redesign:

A) A course in which the routing and playing corridors were preserved, but all 18 green and tee complexes were moved.
B) A course in which every original green was preserved, but the routing changed to where most greens were now being approached from a different angle.

C) A course where 9 of the original 18 holes were abandoned, 3 holes on the original 9 were reconfigured (i.e. par 5 was divided into a par 4 and par 3), and a new 9 holes were added.
D) A course where teeing locations and hole bunkering was changed, requiring some new corridors to be cut through trees or holes being played in reverse, but all green sites being kept.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Would any of these not be consider a redesign:

A) A course in which the routing and playing corridors were preserved, but all 18 green and tee complexes were moved. I have one of these in my portfolio where we kept the corridors for 16 holes. The original routing done by the original person is a good 50% of what makes it good IMO so plenty of credit for the first one.
B) A course in which every original green was preserved, but the routing changed to where most greens were now being approached from a different angle. Quite hard to credit this to the original designer if EVERY hole was changed, so MOST would give some credit to the original.

C) A course where 9 of the original 18 holes were abandoned, 3 holes on the original 9 were reconfigured (i.e. par 5 was divided into a par 4 and par 3), and a new 9 holes were added. as B
D) A course where teeing locations and hole bunkering was changed, requiring some new corridors to be cut through trees or holes being played in reverse, but all green sites being kept. &*^%*

[Jaeger Kovich]

You probably should be judging on the individual features or holes v the general situation across all 18.

[Tom_Doak]

- Changing the routing skeleton of the course
- Rebuilding greens with a completely different design to what they replace (even if in situ)
- Re-doing the whole course bunker scheme (position & style) as opposed to moving a few bunkers to update for the modern game.


There is a minimum amount of the above that needs to be done before credit should be shared with the original architect. That amount is probably a lot more for - say - you or me than it is for - say - Tom. Nothing to do with what he does. Just logical marketing on behalf of the client, isn’t it?

Ally:


I've had a few calls over the years where the club/client seemed to be asking, over several indirect questions, how much work would you have to do so we can say you designed the course?


It seemed very creepy to me and I never followed up on any of those projects.


When I started on The National, I suggested they pay me to spend three days and see what my suggestions were.  [The "Mackenzie approach" is apparently well regarded in Australia.]  They did not expect that I would re-route most of the course and find a bunch of new green sites, and honestly, neither did I, but the important part was that I went into it with a clean slate and they agreed to follow my recommendations.

[Sean_A]

I think when more than three greens/holes are rebuilt in new positions. There are no rules as no one has ever made them. There should always be first credit to the man that did the first work unless someone wipes the lot.


I think architects should get together and decide a set of rules.

If archies made rules they would be somewhat obliged to follow them. 


Ciao

[Mark_Fine]

I have always felt if all and/or parts of the "original routing" are kept in tact, the original architect should always be credited.  If none of that remains, it is a new golf course (not sure why you would call that a redesign as it is now simply a new design by a different architect built on the site of some other architect’s golf course). 

[Brian Ross]

I've had this conversation with a few people regarding Park Mammoth in Kentucky. After some internal debate on the subject, I decided that enough was done to constitute a redesign, or to call it a new course. The owner agrees. Others, including some on this thread, don't.

There, not a single hole has the exact same tee location, centerline, and green location, yet almost every hole utilizes at least one of the three. Some of these routing changes were minor, others major, but we only went outside the original footprint of the course in one spot. We doubled the green square footage and completely redesigned every element of them save for one green (#9). We added length where we could, added 25 bunkers (there were none on the previous course), and removed the vast majority of the trees on the interior of the property. I don't think there's a person alive who has seen both versions that wouldn't call it a major transformation, but whether it's a "new course" or not is certainly up for debate (if necessary). 

I say "if necessary" because, while I have my opinion, at the end of the day it really doesn't matter to me. I'm just proud that we were able to take something that was below-average, dying, and an after-thought in its own small market, and create something that's really worth seeing (IMO). How it's remembered 50 (or 100) years from now is pretty inconsequential to me and my guess is that guys like Donald Ross and his peers probably didn't put a lot of thought into the matter either.

[archie_struthers]

 


It's always been my contention that unless you are blowing it up and starting over you should try to keep it looking like you never came. If it's good you know it and  you should tweak, clean out unwanted trees , restore the greens to original condition and size if warranted etc etc


If you come in and do some "signature" traits of your style it often looks out of place and sticks out like a sore thumb. Good to stay with the style  and genre while fixing the  drainage if needed and restoring lost "stuff" that someone may have messed up. I'm really interested in who did it if I can't tell the new holes from the old!

[Tom_Doak]

It's always been my contention that unless you are blowing it up and starting over you should try to keep it looking like you never came. If it's good you know it and  you should tweak, clean out unwanted trees , restore the greens to original condition and size if warranted etc etc


If you come in and do some "signature" traits of your style it often looks out of place and sticks out like a sore thumb. Good to stay with the style  and genre while fixing the  drainage if needed and restoring lost "stuff" that someone may have messed up. I'm really interested in who did it if I can't tell the new holes from the old!

Hey Archie:


Where do you think ACCC fits on that spectrum.  You knew the "before" course pretty well, I presume, and you also know that the client at the time didn't just want to refresh it.

[archie_struthers]

 


It's a great place then and now !


But I believe the fellow who hired you and gave you his vision made a mistake. Would have been better to refresh the property , fix the issues with drainage and a couple of the greens and leave a classic. I say this given the knowledge that some of the new holes are better than before. Just don't think he had a full appreciation for the history of the place.


Loved the old #2 , and the short and quirky 18 that changed .  Just saying

[Mark_Fine]

Archie,
I am with you regarding coming in and when all said and done, leaving it like you were never there.  What I like to see when I leave is a golf course that looks and feels like the original architect's golf course (or something that reflects his/her design style/courses that the original architect had built).  But there are times when what was there is not worth restoring and redesign/renovation is in order.  That work should still most definitely fit in with what ever remains and/or is worth restoring from the original layout. 

[Tom_Doak]

Archie,
I am with you regarding coming in and when all said and done, leaving it like you were never there.  What I like to see when I leave is a golf course that looks and feels like the original architect's golf course (or something that reflects his/her design style/courses that the original architect had built).  But there are times when what was there is not worth restoring and redesign/renovation is in order.  That work should still most definitely fit in with what ever remains and/or is worth restoring from the original layout.

One aspect of Atlantic City CC was that there was no "original architect's golf course" to consider.  It had been revamped two or three times in its history and there were pieces of each that were part of its character, as is common for any course built before 1900 when the standards of design and construction and the distances people hit the ball were completely different than now.

[Tom_Doak]

It's a great place then and now !


But I believe the fellow who hired you and gave you his vision made a mistake. Would have been better to refresh the property , fix the issues with drainage and a couple of the greens and leave a classic. I say this given the knowledge that some of the new holes are better than before. Just don't think he had a full appreciation for the history of the place.


Loved the old #2 , and the short and quirky 18 that changed .  Just saying

I appreciate your candor.


They wanted to change #2 because hitting over the road on the second shot was dangerous -- you couldn't see the cars coming in.  There wasn't a lot of traffic but it did seem like a significant problem.


The change to #18 was a byproduct of the addition of #14 . . . it squeezed the landing area of the original hole to the point it was unsafe, so we had to move the tee up to get past the pinch point.  The previous hole was indeed quirky, but it seemed like it was in a way that only the low handicappers could appreciate.  I guess there were a lot of those guys floating around ACCC back then though.


When we started work on Memorial Park, it had much the same sort of following, and I asked a lot of questions about what holes or features were worth saving, and nobody would name anything . . . it was just a great place, not a great course.  For ACCC, everyone had favorite holes that they thought we should keep, but a lot of them seemed kind of flawed, to me.

[archie_struthers]

 


Tom , you know I am a fan of your work and you personally. You went out of your way more than a couple times for me. Loved my trip to Michigan to play at Lost Dunes, so much fun. Your treatment of My friend Tom McCarthy and his stories about your work at Riverfront always make me smile!


We know that Goldberg wasn't as concerned with the old golf course and wanted some change. So that's the charge you were given.
I have a lot of memories of the old ACCC including caddying in the 1975 USGA Woman's Open. Had just turned 18 and right before my stint at Pine Valley. Drinking age in Jersey also was 18 and the Jersey Shore was a wonderland for many of us. Great memories of work, shore bars and great bands playing every night. Never left the place for long!


Much of the dirt used at ACCC for your redo came from our site at Twisted Dune, and it was quite a change to the grade on the back nine and the drainage improvements are superb. Often the back nine was swamped after some heavy rain. Not so today, hope you can make a trip back some day while we can still hit it a little




cheers


archie

[Tim_Weiman]

It's a great place then and now !


But I believe the fellow who hired you and gave you his vision made a mistake. Would have been better to refresh the property , fix the issues with drainage and a couple of the greens and leave a classic. I say this given the knowledge that some of the new holes are better than before. Just don't think he had a full appreciation for the history of the place.


Loved the old #2 , and the short and quirky 18 that changed .  Just saying

I appreciate your candor.


They wanted to change #2 because hitting over the road on the second shot was dangerous -- you couldn't see the cars coming in.  There wasn't a lot of traffic but it did seem like a significant problem.


The change to #18 was a byproduct of the addition of #14 . . . it squeezed the landing area of the original hole to the point it was unsafe, so we had to move the tee up to get past the pinch point.  The previous hole was indeed quirky, but it seemed like it was in a way that only the low handicappers could appreciate.  I guess there were a lot of those guys floating around ACCC back then though.


When we started work on Memorial Park, it had much the same sort of following, and I asked a lot of questions about what holes or features were worth saving, and nobody would name anything . . . it was just a great place, not a great course.  For ACCC, everyone had favorite holes that they thought we should keep, but a lot of them seemed kind of flawed, to me.

Tom,


Regarding Memorial Park (“…it was just a great place, not a great course…”), you could not have said it any better!

[Tim_Weiman]

I've had this conversation with a few people regarding Park Mammoth in Kentucky. After some internal debate on the subject, I decided that enough was done to constitute a redesign, or to call it a new course. The owner agrees. Others, including some on this thread, don't.

There, not a single hole has the exact same tee location, centerline, and green location, yet almost every hole utilizes at least one of the three. Some of these routing changes were minor, others major, but we only went outside the original footprint of the course in one spot. We doubled the green square footage and completely redesigned every element of them save for one green (#9). We added length where we could, added 25 bunkers (there were none on the previous course), and removed the vast majority of the trees on the interior of the property. I don't think there's a person alive who has seen both versions that wouldn't call it a major transformation, but whether it's a "new course" or not is certainly up for debate (if necessary). 

I say "if necessary" because, while I have my opinion, at the end of the day it really doesn't matter to me. I'm just proud that we were able to take something that was below-average, dying, and an after-thought in its own small market, and create something that's really worth seeing (IMO). How it's remembered 50 (or 100) years from now is pretty inconsequential to me and my guess is that guys like Donald Ross and his peers probably didn't put a lot of thought into the matter either.

Brian,


Haven’t seen Park Mammoth or arguments to the contrary, but based on your description it sure sounds new.