The consulting archie’s isn’t solely about preservation. There are legitimate reasons to “modernize” ODG designs. Safety is often cited and sometimes this is a legit reason. Sometimes a course is so badly messed up and without a clear blueprint of an original design that there is little to hark back to. There is an oldish club in Detroit which took the bold decision to rip up what they had and build a largely new course. IMO it was done extremely well. A major aspect of the archie’s job was to educate the membership on the direction he wanted to go and why. A good archie is a good archie.
Ciao
Agree with almost all of this, and to be clear I am certainly not anti-enhancement nor new creativity/technology.
These are not mutually exclusive, as modern construction and materials might even enhance a heritage course and release the full scope of original intent that the ODG might not have been able to back in the day. Maintaining "suspended decay" naturalised bunkering in a more stable way for example, or utilising eco-revetting for structure and reduce maintenance (less edging etc.), or superior irrigation to open playing corridors etc. etc.
The caveat being if there are known features, styles, heritage and strategy that could be considered worthy of preservation/enhancement then it should be the case that these are protected or even dialled-up.
I have been involved with dealing with safety aspects, successfuly so by returning to an ODGs style and strategic philosophies.
We have subsequently had several architects in over the years at that same club to do reports pitching to be consulting architects.
Most surprising has been that they all have been really poor in understanding those same (obvious) safety issues, and even suggested removal of some of the key strategic deterrents that have been proven to work over time, by reducing propensity and frequency of balls played towards the danger areas of a constrained site.
In your Detroit example, revision is of course OK in such circumstances, presumably the effort was made exhaustively to check if there was anything worth keeping/enhancing. In the absence of that and if the members/owner wishes then the architects creativity is blissfully unconstrained.
Medinah No.3 for example is an interesting one at a Club/Course whose heritage is hardly unresearched and unknown (few clubs would have as much photographic and video evidence of its "evolution"). But it had gone so far away from any semblence of original or relevant heritage that it essentially became a clean slate for new thought and creativity by a great team, in OCM.
They educated all as to their suggested approach, there was broad buy in at leadership level, and subsequently the membership to the concept.
Essentialy both these examples are the same process that I suggested; research, check, and educate. Then be creative in execution.
If there is scope for new creativity in whole or part, then a good architect can provide solutions.
I just want all architects to be good architects, and be respectful custodians and educators of our built heritage that inspires so many (even if the overwhelming majority golfers don't know why it does).