Restorations

[Patrick_Mucci]

They're far more difficult politically than architecturally.

Most have no idea as to the in-fighting that accompanies the attempt to restore.

Amongst the various questions that accompany an attempt at restoration is feature "placement"

Even if the club possesses abundant aerial and ground level photos, do you adopt a purist position, an interpretive position, a combination of both ?

If a course has a significant pedigree, how vigorously do you pursue returning the course to the opening day configuration ?
And if you do, what adjustments do you make to account for current day distance.

I recently played a course that has embarked upon a restoration, not all at once, but over time.

While they've been faithful to the architectural style of the original architect, they have approached the restoration in the context of today's golfer.

The results are impressive, but unfortunately, it's an ongoing struggle.

Especially when the golf course has to compete with every other department for funds.

What's always puzzled me is why the club elected to disown and disassociate itself from its original pedigree.

What courses, disfigured or redesigned over the years have embarked upon and have been successful with faithful restorations ?

[Jon Cavalier]

Sleepy Hollow springs immediately to mind. As does Old Town. Somerset Hills, Piping Rock, The Creek, Greenbrier Old White, Philly Cricket and Pinehurst No. 2 are a few others. North Shore in Glen Head is another that turned out really well.

Also, Moraine CC in Dayton (which I played today, and which I thought was excellent as is) will be closing for the better part of a year for a Keith Foster restoration of the bunkers, greens and fairways. I expect the result, given what is there now and the typical quality of Foster's work, to be nothing short of exceptional.

[Jay Mickle]

Must add the Kyle Franz redo of Mid Pines.

[Jud_T]

Barton Hills
Skokie
U of M (ongoing)
Tamarack CC

[Mark McKeever]

Pat, hop in the car with Lapper and get your butts down here to see Philly Cricket this summer!!!

Mark

[Matt Frey, PGA]

Very true. Plus, if the club is in the unfortunate position in which they had planted "memorial trees," they are in awkward positions when it comes to restoring original sight lines and vistas.

Additionally, many courses which built in the first half of the 1900s had much wider fairways. While I'm all for widening fairways can be costly to a club, especially if their membership expects the whole fairway to be irrigated.

[Terry Poley]

Awesome points! 

The political part is right on. 

Even with old photos, aerials and ground level, some will argue.  I feel there are several layers to the misunderstanding of a renovation: some people are resistant to change, some have fond memories of playing golf as a child at the course (although their memory on layout and trees especially can be jaded), But, more often I feel we (this group of similar minded people) are the 10%ers and have a much better understanding on golf course architecture and design.  We often times take certain ideas and concepts for granted as we know they are facts based on historical information, while the other 90% only think of their game and how it will effect them.

We (my club) are working towards a renovation with a well respected architect and it has turned into a shit show...

Here are the comments coming from the "Card Room", Most of which involve trees, and unfortunately, most of these come from past presidents and amazingly have grown "legs" and are now circulating around the club.  These are not my comments...They are super easy to debate, but are becoming exhausting...

- If we remove trees the golf course will become easier and we will lose our competitive edge in recruiting new members
- Since our course is so small (120) acres and flat, we need to plant a lot of trees to "protect it"
- The new design will not be safe
- Can you believe the architect want to re-design our signature hole because he doesn't like it, Robert VonHagge built that in the 80's and its our best golf hole
- The acoustics on the course will change ()
- We should only spend our money to plant trees and repair cart paths
- You can't make changes to a green complex without moving tees and fairways
- The new design will greatly reduce our course rating and slope, we need to protect par (not even sure what that means)
- We don't need a restoration, no one even knows who Willie Park Jr. is anymore... we need a modern course

Mr. Mucci, you wrote:
"What's always puzzled me is why the club elected to disown and disassociate itself from its original pedigree." 

Our club is 113 years old... what separates ourselves from the rest??? Most companies would kill for that kind of heritage and pedigree!

Generally, when challenged on any of the comments, the reply is... We know these ideas work on other courses, But our course is different..


I can think of two very successful projects that started off slow, doing some small projects for several years, then finishing up over one season.  Orchard Lake CC and Old Elm Club.  I think each club had it's own reasons for their attack, but each one turned out phenomenal.

Thanks for getting me fired up this morning!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat, hop in the car with Lapper and get your butts down here to see Philly Cricket this summer!!!

Mark,

Why would I want to spend up to four (4) hours confined in an automobile with Steve Lapper ?

I first played PCC about 40 years ago.

I was incredibly impressed by the strength and character of the course.

In those intervening 40 years had others come in and redesigned/disfigured the course ?

[BCowan]

Awesome points!  

The political part is right on.  

Even with old photos, aerials and ground level, some will argue.  I feel there are several layers to the misunderstanding of a renovation: some people are resistant to change, some have fond memories of playing golf as a child at the course (although their memory on layout and trees especially can be jaded), But, more often I feel we (this group of similar minded people) are the 10%ers and have a much better understanding on golf course architecture and design.  We often times take certain ideas and concepts for granted as we know they are facts based on historical information, while the other 90% only think of their game and how it will effect them.

We (my club) are working towards a renovation with a well respected architect and it has turned into a shit show...

Here are the comments coming from the "Card Room", Most of which involve trees, and unfortunately, most of these come from past presidents and amazingly have grown "legs" and are now circulating around the club.  These are not my comments...They are super easy to debate, but are becoming exhausting...

- If we remove trees the golf course will become easier and we will lose our competitive edge in recruiting new members
- Since our course is so small (120) acres and flat, we need to plant a lot of trees to "protect it"
- The new design will not be safe
- Can you believe the architect want to re-design our signature hole because he doesn't like it, Robert VonHagge built that in the 80's and its our best golf hole
- The acoustics on the course will change ()
- We should only spend our money to plant trees and repair cart paths
- You can't make changes to a green complex without moving tees and fairways
- The new design will greatly reduce our course rating and slope, we need to protect par (not even sure what that means)
- We don't need a restoration, no one even knows who Willie Park Jr. is anymore... we need a modern course

Mr. Mucci, you wrote:
"What's always puzzled me is why the club elected to disown and disassociate itself from its original pedigree."  

Our club is 113 years old... what separates ourselves from the rest??? Most companies would kill for that kind of heritage and pedigree!

Generally, when challenged on any of the comments, the reply is... We know these ideas work on other courses, But our course is different..


I can think of two very successful projects that started off slow, doing some small projects for several years, then finishing up over one season.  Orchard Lake CC and Old Elm Club.  I think each club had it's own reasons for their attack, but each one turned out phenomenal.

Thanks for getting me fired up this morning!

Terry,

Excellent post.  Have faith, my friend tells me RR is doing tree removal  

[Ian Andrew]

They're far more difficult politically than architecturally.

Pat, that absolutely inaccurate

Most have no idea as to the in-fighting that accompanies the attempt to restore.

I would say this is actually more popular than recommendation wholesale change

If a course has a significant pedigree, how vigorously do you pursue returning the course to the opening day configuration ? And if you do, what adjustments do you make to account for current day distance.

Its common to see "some" limited change to fairway bunkering because of technology.
Depending on your view of the definition of restoration - depends on how you see this as being "part of a restoration ... or not"

[Mark McKeever]

Pat, hop in the car with Lapper and get your butts down here to see Philly Cricket this summer!!!

Mark,

Why would I want to spend up to four (4) hours confined to an automobile with Steve Lapper ?

I first played PCC about 40 years ago.

I was incredibly impressed by the strength and character of the course.

In those intervening 40 years had others come in and redesigned/disfigured the course ?

Great point Pat.  Perhaps you just meet him here instead.  In the last 40 years, I don't think very much had changed before the restoration efforts took place.   

[Patrick_Mucci]

They're far more difficult politically than architecturally.

Pat, that absolutely inaccurate

Ian,

I stand by my comment.

You only get to see and work on restorations that have been approved, leaving the number of projects that were either defeated or died on the vine as unquantified.

Once the political decision has been made to proceed with a project, with some bumps in the road, the architectural phase is much, much easiser.

Most have no idea as to the in-fighting that accompanies the attempt to restore.

I would say this is actually more popular than recommendation wholesale change

If a course has a significant pedigree, how vigorously do you pursue returning the course to the opening day configuration ? And if you do, what adjustments do you make to account for current day distance.

Its common to see "some" limited change to fairway bunkering because of technology.
Depending on your view of the definition of restoration - depends on how you see this as being "part of a restoration ... or not"

[RKoehn]

The problem is that the term "restoration" is often conflated with "redesign."  This can be intentional or unintentional.  Architects who ostensibly specialize in "restoration" in a number of cases have large egos that drive them to imprint their own design preferences on courses, even when clear original drawings and photos exist.  There is also a financial reason for this, as architects often share in the construction fees and therefore the bigger the project, the better financially it is for them.

[David_Tepper]

The problem is that the term "restoration" is often conflated with "redesign."

The issue of restoration vs. renovation vs. re-design vs. re-creation was discussed here very recently.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,60922.0.html

[Ian Andrew]

I stand by my comment.

You only get to see and work on restorations that have been approved, leaving the number of projects that were either defeated or died on the vine as unquantified. 

Pat,

I'm a working architect.
I don't base my opinions on what I see, I base them on what people I know are doing.

I talk with a lot of my peers on a regular basis.
I know what their working on.

I keep tabs on my friends and more importantly on my competitors.

This type of approach is "popular".
It has been for quite some time now ... why do you think someone like me has remained busy throughout this tough period?
All the guys that are historically based are really busy Pat ... its not hard to put two and two together on why.

I doubt you'll take my word, but I would think someone in the industry would have a better feel than someone outside, don't you think?

[Bill Brightly]

The problem is that the term "restoration" is often conflated with "redesign."

The issue of restoration vs. renovation vs. re-design vs. re-creation was discussed here very recently.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,60922.0.html

David,

The thread you posted is probably what prompted Pat to post this one. As much as I enjoyed the esoteric discussion that Peter, Tom and others had about what a project is called, I think it misses the real problem that club leaders face when proposing changes to an old golf course. I do not care if you call it restoration, renovation, re-design or recreation. The work will have to approved and funded by the membership. By definition, that means dealing with a variety of different factions in the club, many who think the existing course is just fine, so the plan had better have broad appeal.

As someone who helped successfully lead such an effort, I choose to call our project a restoration, even if some of the restored bunkers are further from the tees than when the ODG built the course in the 1920's.  Restoration is simply a word that most members will accept. Many bunkers were drawn on the plan to be 140-180 yards away from the tee in the early 1900's. How could I possibly ask the membership to "restore" those bunkers in the exact locations? I think that is silly. It would also be silly to change the name of a project to renovation to meet a gca-purist definition.

To answer Pat's question as to why a club would "disown or disassociate itself from its pedigree" I'll give you the specific reasons that my club:

First, there was the PGA sponsored Tillinghast tour where several bunkers where removed at his suggestion to save on cost. I guess I'll give Tilly a pass since this work was done when many clubs were struggling to survive. But I'll always believe he quietly loved getting his hands on a MacRaynor and reducing the scale of the bunkering...

Secondly, in the early 1960's our club leaders were probably ignorant to the lineage that Banks had to Raynor and Macdonald. RTJ was the flavor of the day, so we created a Modernization Committee who hired William Gordon. In came a style with bunkers front left and front right on every green, a style that required an aerial game. Green sizes and contours where dramatically reduced. While we might cringe at the word "modernization" today, I'm sure that was a GREAT label to use in selling work to a membership in 1961... Just like mentioning Augusta was probably effective in explaining why a thousand white pines and spruces should be added to a golf course in the 1970's...

[Steve Lapper]

Pat, hop in the car with Lapper and get your butts down here to see Philly Cricket this summer!!!

Mark,

Why would I want to spend up to four (4) hours confined to an automobile with Steve Lapper ?

I first played PCC about 40 years ago.

I was incredibly impressed by the strength and character of the course.

In those intervening 40 years had others come in and redesigned/disfigured the course ?

Great point Pat.  Perhaps you just meet him here instead.  In the last 40 years, I don't think very much had changed before the restoration efforts took place.  

I agree, although I could bear the destination half of that journey.

 On the way home, having to listen to Mucci pontificate about some course completely unrelated to PCC (because Mark, trust me when I tell you, Pat won't remember much beyond the men's room) would be painful. Forget the rent, Mucci's too damn old!

[Patrick_Mucci]

I stand by my comment.

You only get to see and work on restorations that have been approved, leaving the number of projects that were either defeated or died on the vine as unquantified. 

Pat,

I'm a working architect.
I don't base my opinions on what I see, I base them on what people I know are doing.

OK, but if the club has voted against the project or it died on the vine, then the people you know are also unawared of what transpired.

In general, you only know about projects that were approved in final form and not all the projects that were killed along the way.

I talk with a lot of my peers on a regular basis.
I know what their working on.

That's an approved project, not one that was killed during it's formative stage.

I keep tabs on my friends and more importantly on my competitors.

This type of approach is "popular".
It has been for quite some time now ... why do you think someone like me has remained busy throughout this tough period?
All the guys that are historically based are really busy Pat ... its not hard to put two and two together on why.

Ian, it appears that you haven't grasped the concept yet.
The concept is that many restoration projects never reach the bidding process because they're killed at the committee or board level or just die for lack of interest.

I doubt you'll take my word, but I would think someone in the industry would have a better feel than someone outside, don't you think?
Not necessarily.

I would think that someone embedded in the local/regional golf community would have a good feel for what's transpiring at other local/regional clubs.

You're only seeing the tip of the iceberg and I'm seeing the entire iceberg.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Steve Lapper,

Old, and hopefully, getting older.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bill Brightly,

Few understand what happens behind the scenes at local clubs.

What most see is the finished project after the membership has approved the work.

Rarely do they see behind the scenes at all of the in-fighting and/or lobbying over the many design elements.
From green size to contours to location to bunkering, etc. etc..

With 250 members, you'll get at least 400 opiinions and each one bears equal weight according to the author.

Then, the most important issue in the room rears it's head.    MONEY

And so the battle rages on in the context of appropriations and method of payment.

Unless a club is lucky enough to have a benevolent dictator or guardian angel, funding often determines outcomes.

I continue to be "surprised" by the logic employed to dramatically alter "Golden Age" golf courses, courses with bona fide pedigrees.

Is not the 12th at GCGC exhibit "A" ?

[Ian Mackenzie]

So many variables.
So many possibilities.

1. Is it a golf club or a country club?

2. Are proposed changes "member-driven" or "Market-driven"?

3. Is there clear consensus or does a small group of the "village elders" want to force change?

4. Will there be a special assessment? Will the club take on debt? Can it be done from operating budget?

5. Are there 300+ members or are there 130?


Few clubs take the time to listen up front.
We did a professional survey of our membership. Then the results were delivered in town hall meetings. Then a restoration was proposed to address the member's issues. The approval % of our project was staggering, IMO.

Our property has trees...20,000+...with all the "Memorial plantings" going back over 100 years. The BOD at our club did an incredible job - especially the president. Yes, trees came down, new bunkers and tees put in. It's a work in progress and we arent finished yet.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ian MacKenzie,

That helps to shed light on the "process".

A process that many don't understand.

While the participants on this site might clamor for a "restoration" based upon the architectural pedigree and preserving the architectural integrity/continuity of the course, few members have that perspective and have to be enlightened if the project is to be approved and funded.

I don't know many clubs that select an architect, tell him that they want the course restored as he sees fit and that he has an unlimited budget to accomplish the restorative goal.

It ain't that simple.

And, what may be equally as difficult as approving the initial plan, is continuing with the plan when it's a construction project scheduled over a longer period of time.

Bill Brightly,

I'm sure that you have experience in this area.

[Ian Andrew]

Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean "I don't get" what your suggesting or saying.

That's an approved project, not one that was killed during it's formative stage

Did you ever think it was "possible" that we (architects) are asked to look at a course without any direction whatsoever...
Do you think restoration started with committees, or is it conceivable that it was originally driven by a small group of architects.
If you think architects didn't play a role ... then fine I give ...

Signed,

Mr. Tip o' Iceberg

[Bill Brightly]

Ian,

I think you and Pat are not that far apart in your positions. What I am saying, and what I think Pat is saying, is that more times than not it takes a dedicated few club leaders to even get you on the property to provide your comments and recommendations. And after you provide that, no matter how well you present your recommendations to the membership (and there is a strong need for that) there will be much internal discussions within a club before the funding is approved.

Even if every recommendation you make is approved, getting the work funded in a timely manner is not a given. Competing maintenance needs in the restaurant, clubhouse, pool, parking lots etc., etc., always threaten to jump ahead of work on the golf course. And even after all the work on the golf course is done, I think there is a strong need to continue to explain and "sell" the membership on why the work was undertaken. Not everyone will have bought in, but many will gradually come to see the wisdom in the changes. Of course some will NEVER come around, but I think it is important for the club leaders to try.  Those are the conversations that take place in foursomes on the course, at the bar, and in the card room. No one doubts the importance of a skilled architect like you. But what goes on "beneath the waterline" is amazing. What Pat is REALLY saying is: "you just keep your head above water and he'll handle everythong below!"

[Chris Hans]

Vesper Country Club was restored in 2009.