Updating our old courses - Restoration or renovation?
Renovation & Re-modelling of existing golf courses
Article for Golf Club Management - February 2003
Article for ‘Favourite Holes by Design - The Architect’s
Choice’
Article for Golf Club Management - March 2004
Golf course design – a different outlook
ARTICLE FOR ‘GOLF ARCHITECTURE - WORLDWIDE PERSPECTIVE’ by Simon Gidman - August 2002
UPDATING OUR OLD COURSES – RESTORATION OR RENOVATION?
Restoration – act or process of restoring- not very helpful- let’s try “to restore”
Restore – to repair: to bring, put, or give back: to make good: to reinstate: to bring back to a former state
Renovate – to renew or make new again: to make as if new: to regenerate.
Restoration then – to bring back to a former state- is this really a serious choice for our older courses? One only needs to look at some of the early plans of these courses to realise that they often played as 6000yd courses, with hazards placed at 170 –190 yds from the tee and landscapes which were quite often immature and undeveloped. Golf club members, I would suggest, do not want to go back to those times.
Bear in mind too that many of our older course have gone through a number of reincarnations. As such it is perhaps worth asking how far back in time would one go before settling upon which layout to restore? Would St. Andrews go back to the pre 1850’s when it was played on the same route going out as in again? Definitely not. Would Shinnecock Hills one of the greatest of inland courses go back to pre Toomey and Flynn days? One hopes not. These are perhaps absurd examples but the point needs to be made that golf courses have evolved and changed, they are living landscapes that change in response to the demands of equipment, the ambitions of the membership and the popularity of the game. Whether or not they have evolved in the right direction is another question – but I do not know of any of our older courses that have done nothing and have still survived.
If a golf course stagnates it dies. Pinehurst no. 2, one of Donald Ross’s greatest legacies, has holes some of which he altered as many as three times. Not many of us have clients so willing for constant change but Donald Ross knew that his course had to adapt to change both to his own ideas and to developments within the game. I doubt that Pinehurst would have been the great course it is today had Ross not made those fundamental improvements.
This was a matter of renovation rather than restoration.
Renovation is nothing new. Indeed one only has to look at the careers of
some of our earliest architects like Colt, Mackenzie, Fowler and Willie Park
jnr to realise how much remodelling work they undertook. Colt for example
started his career in golf as secretary at Sunningdale Old Course - originally
designed by Willie Park jnr – and spent much of his early days moving
bunkers, adding trees in strategic places and creating other features on the
course. Mackenzie was remodelling Royal St.George’s, Lahinch and Blairgowrie;
Fowler - Ganton, Royal Lytham & St.Annes, Royal North Devon and so the
list goes on. These modifications came about partly in response to the need
to create a full 18 hole golf course but more often as a result of major improvements
to the golf ball and dramatic changes in the philosophy of the game as it
moved from the penal to the strategic schools of architecture.
On the question of strategy, history and equipment generally, it is interesting
to note the effects this has had on modern design. In the past great emphasis
was placed on the location and angle of approach bunkering. Golf was played
with the 1.62inch ball to firm (non irrigated) greens and to stay on the green
it was critical to play short and allow the natural contours of the approach
to direct the ball toward the flag. Accurate driving to a certain opening
in the fairway and equally accurate second or third shots to a point on the
approach was the hallmark of a good golfer. Hence the value of the approach
bunker. This approach to golf strategy is less relevant these days. Golfers
of all handicaps now expect to hit a ball through the air directly onto the
green and for the ball to stay on that green. Thus the modern approach to
designing greens is to angle the greens away from the centreline and to protect
the surface with more hazards both to the front as well as sides of the green
.
Modern target golf over historical strategic golf.
But many of our older courses have an abundance of approach bunkers well short of the green. They don’t often come into play these days but they do set up the approach to the green beautifully, and whatever we may say about the exact location of bunkers, who could forget Ross’s timeless comment; “there is no such thing as a misplaced bunker ……………It is the business of the player to avoid it.”
Every architect will have their own view on this issue - but my own? Well, much will depend on each hole and the strategic influences of the hole. But as a principle I prefer to retain the original concept and framework. By all means move the bunkers forward and narrow the green approaches, slightly, but the spirit of the original design should be retained. I suppose my answer to the question of renovation is – what would Harry Colt or Herbert Fowler or Abercrombie have done to their courses had they the chance to remodel their own creations 100 years later.
When one visits these established, properly designed, courses it always surprises me how well they have fared through the years. Whilst the fundamental principles of golf design have not really altered over the years, nevertheless green complexes are mostly as challenging now as when first built and the location of hazards around the green still demand thought and precision. Equally the layout of the golf holes rarely needs to be changed in a Braid, Colt, Simpson layout unless perhaps it is due to development encroaching close to the boundaries of the course.
So golf is a game that has changed and evolved and in response restoration of these old courses to a former self is not really a serious alternative. But renovating an old course to it’s original style is an entirely different matter.
Like all creative people, these early architects had certain styles and traits which characterized their courses. Yet, when one visits many of these older courses it is amazing how easy it is to detect the amateurish additions that have been added over the years. Changes, inspired by personal taste rather than course philosophy often leave a course bereft of its original strategy. Bunkers and other hazards have been taken out and others put in for no obvious reason. As a result many of our older courses lack design continuity as every participant attempts to leave their own, often ghastly, stamp on the course. What a course needs is unity not a jumble of ideas and statements. Above all else when renovating, these “carbuncles”, as Prince Charles might have called them, need to be re–assessed and invariably removed.
A Colt original - green and bunkers carefully and interestingly integrated into the landscape
Same golf course - but obviously not original Colt features
To date, I have tended to concentrate on golf courses with some kind of architectural heritage and the issues related to the remodelling of these courses. But there are many older courses with no such heritage. These courses, though by no means all, tend to have certain inherent weaknesses. Sometimes these problems can be fundamental with holes laid out poorly – I still occasionally come across holes that cross each other, though these have often been removed in previous changes. However more often it is simple things like small greens, bunkering that does not challenge as perhaps it should and mounding that needs modification. But a wholesale approach to change is still something to be avoided. These courses may not be of architectural significance but they are of enormous importance and affection to the members that play the course. The little nuances of the course, the strange shapes, the grassy hollows and knoles are all significant. This after all represents the character of the course.
But both from an agronomic and architectural viewpoint changes need to be made. The greens will invariably be clay based and often closed for parts of the winter, unlike their new, recently built neighbours and tees will be too small and bunker faces worn and sub-bases not drained. From an architectural viewpoint basic golfing principles and shot values may not have been addressed at all in the original layout or simply need to be reviewed. Trees, planted many years previous, now encroach onto the playing surface casting shade and leaf litter, and how often does one find these golf courses lined with totally indigenous planting – a mass of dark pine, larch, cupressus and poplar with little thought given to long term indigenous planting. Despite these inherent weaknesses the charm and character of the courses are an all-important asset that need to be retained. Members want their courses upgraded, the specification of greens and tees improved, hazards moved to a more appropriate position and they might even want a little water incorporated to add to the heroic nature of the course –but above all else members want the character of their course retained.
Marrying the two principles is a difficult though not impossible task. Green sizes can be enlarged to accept current volumes of play –but still be small(ish); bunkers shapes and designs can maintain their uniqueness- but be better placed; and grassy hollows, swales and mounds re incorporated – yet retain their historic style. Despite the awkwardness of some of these features to maintain it is surprising how rarely maintenance, or rather the improvement or ease of maintenance is given as a cause for renovation. The odd mound or deep sided ditch might be removed but on the whole the Club will have lived with these features and tend to accept and even enjoy these strange oddities.
In Britain the development of new golf courses in the late 80’s and 90’s has not only helped to satisfy the demand in popularity of the game but it has also made existing golf clubs reassess their own courses. Enlightened members, realising that they have been the beneficiaries of the previous generation’s foresight are often conscious of the need to pass on to the next generation of golfers a product that will last for the next 100 years. They know that unless they adapt and improve their own course, in time it too will fall by the way side and as a result many are taking the positive step to renovating their course.
Many of these courses represent a wonderful and valuable golfing heritage that have taken years to reach the degree of maturity so envied by newer courses. This heritage needs to be carefully adapted to the modern demands of the game, improved but not obviously modernised, renovated but rarely restored.
Simon Gidman August 2002
Article for English Golf Union - Newsletter March 2003
RENOVATION AND RE-MODELLING OF EXISTING GOLF COURSES
One of the interesting side effects of the golf course boom of the 80’s and 90’s has been the response of many of our older golf clubs. Recent and rapid developments in golf equipment have highlighted many of the weaknesses of these courses. This, coupled with what I believe to be a greater awareness of golf course architecture and its principles, has led many golf clubs to re-assess the playability of the course, both from the point of view of the modern day player as well as questioning the inadequacies of the original construction. Another aspect of renovation is the opportunity to correct the many years of changes made by “in house” committees and other well-intentioned administrators. Particularly in the 70’s and 80’s it seemed almost incumbent upon committees to make alterations to a course. Some well used bunkers were removed and others constructed - often with no regard to style and design. As a result some golf courses have six or seven different types of bunkering and the whole effect is a mish mash of ideas and values. Further, mass coniferous planting was often undertaken with little thought to any long term planting strategy. These mistakes now need to be corrected.
Golf has changed dramatically over the past 15 years let alone the past 100 years when many of our older courses were first built. But how does one combine the new with a respect for the old? A difficult question whose answer may vary from course to course. For example many of our older courses have an abundance of approach bunkers, but should they all be removed purely to reflect modern design – surely not? Equally some greenside bunkers, designed to catch the long iron/wood shot are now often redundant, except of course for the high handicap golfer. These can certainly be moved without altering the feel of the course. The playing characteristics of a golf ball now demand greater protection of the green than used to be the case and minor changes such as this can add greatly to a restructuring of the course whilst not affecting it’s individuality and special charm .
Some courses have suffered major changes, and I can think of one course in America, originally built by D. Ross that changed so dramatically it led to calls for the preservation of our historic courses, and societies were formed with the express aim of safeguarding these historical golfing landscapes.
Harewood Downs - Original hole 1
The current climate of analysis should allow for a complete reappraisal of a golf course, providing an opportunity to bring the course up to date and providing a blueprint that will last for many years to come. Such reports should address the entire course, the size and condition of tees; the position, size and maintenance of bunkering; the shape, size and overall construction of greens; the tree planting and environmental and ecological value of the course. It is a document that needs to be discussed and supported by the whole club. One always hears the old cliché of a golf club representing 500 golf course architects and of course that is true, but this is a reflection of the personal interest each member takes of his or her course. Equally there may well be instances where an architect is not aware of certain sentimental features of the course, which would only be highlighted by discussion with the membership.
Plan of revisions
New construction works on an existing course inevitably leads to much consternation within a golf club. Nobody should be deceived that the work will be painless, either from a financial or disruptive point of view. Depending on the extent of the project, the ideal time for construction is late summer when ground conditions are favourable, though of course it assumes no play on the works in question until the following year. In terms of a timetable the works should be undertaken in one or two years. This may not always be possible but if works are extended much beyond five years or so, the membership will inevitably suffer from construction fatigue and as a result the works may not be completed at all. Once a timetable has been established it needs determination to see it through to it’s conclusion. The disruption may take place for two or three years but hopefully the results will last for many years thereafter.
Completed hole - before sanding bunkers
Renovation of an existing course is often a difficult concept to grasp for many members who are invariably satisfied with the course as it is and enjoy its frailties. However competition from newly designed and constructed courses require our older, established courses to review their assets and to consider renovation.
This is an opportunity for this golfing generation to pass onto the next a course that reflects modern day approaches to the game that should last to the end of this century, whilst still retaining the charm and character of the original course as it was built at the beginning of the last century.
From the architects point of view the art is to make these changes sympathetically and to leave one’s ego firmly in the cupboard.
Simon Gidman
GOLF COURSE ARCHITECT
(member and past president of European Institute of Golf Course Architects)
Article for Golf Club Management - February 2003
One of the principle issues involved with renovation is the actual construction work involved. Golf club members are not used to heavy machinery parading around their golf course and now with Health and Safety issues very much to the fore quite often golf holes are closed for the simplest remedial tasks. In the past small works, for example bunker and tee re-construction, have been undertaken ‘in house’. There is clearly a saving in costs in this method of working and of course the greenkeeping staff can work very much to the detailed timetable of the golf club. However on the down side the greenkeeping staff have to maintain, look after and improve the existing golf course and so often new projects are started, partly completed, and then put to one side whilst more mundane maintenance matters are dealt with. As a result what is perceived as minor re-construction work can take months to finish. This is no reflection on greenkeepers more a reflection on staffing arrangements.
What I have found surprising is the response from golf clubs when contractors are involved. The range of construction works, top soil stripping, earth shaping, drainage, root zone application, turfing, seeding and irrigation all need to be undertaken to a very exact timetable and contractors are geared to this. They cannot afford to have employees idle. The cost does tend to be higher than if the works were done internally but the speed and precision of the work generally tends to compensate.
Harewood Downs G.C. Hole 14 - pre-turfing
Simon Gidman
Member and Past President of European Institute of Golf Course Architects
Article for ‘Favourite Holes by Design - The Architect’s Choice’ By Paul Daley
Shinnecock Hills Golf Course – Hole 12
One of my early memories of college is that of the lecturer in historic landscapes repeatedly referring to gardens as palimpsests, knowing full well that us first years had no idea what he was talking about. Of course after the lecture we all scuttled off to the nearest dictionary to find the following explanation – “a manuscript in which old writing has been rubbed out to make room for new” .If the description of a palimpsest can be directed at a garden landscape it can certainly be applied to a golf course.
So many of our great golf courses have undergone transformations over the years; courses with often fairly inauspicious beginnings improved to become testaments to great golf course architecture. Shinnneck Hills G. C. on the eastern seaboard of America is certainly one of those courses.
Initially a reservation for the Alonquin tribe who roamed from the Shinnecock Bay to Montauk, the symbol of the American Red Indian is entwined into all aspects of the club, most notably on the club’s motif.
The golf course, initially designed as a 12 hole layout by Willie Davis in 1891 always seemed to be the forerunner of golf in America, constantly introducing new ideas and forever moving forward. It was not the first course in America perhaps but the first, possibly shared with Chicago golf course, to have 18 holes; it was the first to have a clubhouse, the first to be an incorporated golf club and was possibly the originator of the use of red for the ladies’ tees, when an additional nine holes, known as the Red course, was designed for the exclusive use of the lady players. This separate Red course was not an overwhelming success and soon after it’s opening the two courses were re-arranged to form a single 18 hole layout.
However perhaps the biggest changes to the golf course came in 1928 under the direction of then club president Mr. Lucien Tyng who not only purchased new land for development but also employed Dick Wilson and his constructors Toomey and Flynn to reorganise the layout. This was completed in 1931 and it is broadly this layout that forms the basis of the golf course today. These changes increased the overall length of the course from less than 5000yds.to 6749 yds and since then a further 163 yds were added for the 1986 US Open to create the current layout of 6912 yards par 70.
There are so many great holes at Shinnecock Hill G.C. and normally it’s the 13th or 14th that receive the most plaudits, but to my mind it’s the 12th hole that typifies great architecture. Perhaps it is because it comes after the slightly disappointing short par 3 11th hole, or perhaps it was because I took a 5 on the 11th hole and a par 4 on the 12th, I don’t know.
But after
a short walk uphill from the 11th green one is immediately impressed by the
shape, scale and arrangement of the 12th hole. A straightish hole played in
its own amphitheatre; the hole measures 472 yards and plays over naturally
undulating rolls. There is no unforeseen trickery about the hole – what
you see is what you get. The architects have not needed to overcomplicate
or exaggerate the design. The hole is set in its own vast expanse with no
other golf hole in sight, making the personal dual between the player and
the game somehow seem more intense and personal. The 12th is a marvellously
thought through and beautifully presented hole. The choices off the tee are
almost unlimited. The easy drive is to the left of the central fairway bunker
where there is the bulk of the rolling fairway until a distant fairway bunker
beckons at 250 yard. The better or more challenged golfer will take on the
central or right hand bunkers and gain as much length as possible to reduce
the pressure on the long second shot.
The approach to the green is protected by a series of bunkers, almost penal in nature, with sand either side of the fairway. Yet for those who have taken the easy option off the tee and played to the left of the fairway the second shot is a serious challenge. The golfer, assuming he cannot reach the green is left to decide whether to draw the ball into the very narrow space that is the approach or to drop it short of the road and chip on from there. For those who have braved the right side of the fairway and the narrow bunkering at the 250 yd mark the shot is, whilst shorter, equally challenging. You obviously have to avoid the approach bunkering and to hit an accurate shot to the green that tends to shed the ball into a series of hollows and swales off the putting surface. There is no let up on the hole, the decision off the tee needs to be carefully considered, the drive properly struck and the second shot demands both thought and accuracy of execution.
It’s been said often enough in the architectural world that great holes are a mixture of risk and reward and the 12th encapsulates all that is great in a golf hole, both from the playing of the hole as well as the visual beauty of the surrounds.
The featuring on the hole, and the course for that matter, is outstanding. No “fancy dan” bunkers on these holes, but large elliptical sand features set into strong grass faces. They have a certain grandness about them that does not draw the eye to their shape or design but fit, as strong features should do, perfectly into the landscape – their scale and style matched to the surrounds into which they are set.
Each hole at the Shinnecock Hills is set into its own landscape prompting Ben Hogan to comment “Each hole is different and requires a great deal of skill to play properly. All in all I think Shinnecock is one of the finest courses I have played”.
Despite being British and loving almost all British courses my views are
similar. It has been likened to British seaside courses, though the careful
design of the holes contrasts with the often idiosyncratic challenges that
characterise many British seaside courses. However the 12th has all the markings
of a great hole ; choice, beauty, scale and challenge.
I recall vividly the first time I played the course in late summer. We had
finished the round and a mist was beginning to descend on the course. We had
a quick drink and were then ushered gently out of the clubhouse into the crisp
evening air. We drove down the driveway and you had the sense that, whilst
the golfer roamed the course during the day, the original inhabitants, the
American Red Indian returned and reclaimed their mystical and spiritual home
at night. Balance restored I think.
Simon Gidman December 2003
ARTICLE FOR GOLF CLUB MANAGEMENT - March
2004
As architects we spend a lot of our time visiting older golf clubs, keen to
renovate and upgrade their courses. More often than not these courses have
been designed by some well known architect from the 20's and 30's. An architect
that would have had their own very specific style.
After many years of play and change this original style - particularly where
bunker design is concerned - is frequently lost often replaced with a simple,
easy to maintain design that does very little to present the course in the
right light. Bunkers are often the most visually impressive of golf features.
They are a different colour to their surrounds and as such can provide shape
and scale to the course as well as providing the main challenge to the playing
of the game.
Over the years some bunkers have become redundant whilst others have lost
their original shape and become impossible to maintain. Work needs to be done
to these bunkers - no question - both in terms of their position and their
design. Sometimes these changes have already commenced with varying degrees
of success. More often than not I find that what was once an interesting and
challenging feature has been replaced with a dull simple to maintain sand
trap that does very little to improve either the presentation or playing of
the course. In terms of design it is in some ways the easy way out, the easy
solution.
Bunkers of any kind need maintenance and the ability to maintain effectively
will be important in the final design, but bunkers need to create interest
and they need to be impressive visually. On some of our older courses this
means understanding the previous architects work and re establishing their
ideas, on others the modern architect may have a greater say in terms of design
and style. Whatever the design issues the final effect needs to be maintenance
friendly, yet dramatic and effective.
Simon Gidman
Golf course design – a different outlook.
by Simon Gidman [Member - European Institute of Golf Course Architects]
Many readers will remember the R and A publication, “The Demand for
Golf” which, along with other factors, helped spark a huge upsurge in
golf development in this country. Based on American/Scottish quotas of courses
per population it was estimated that Britain needed to produce a further 700
courses by 2000 to meet demand. Cue massive development.
Some of the new courses proved to be inspiring, others proved less so with poor basic design, poor specification and poor construction - quite a catalogue of failure! One can understand any developers desire to keep costs to a minimum and work to a strict budget. What many of these courses exhibited however was ego and bravado over business sense and long term planning. This lack of basic quality is now beginning to haunt these developments. Many are faced with stiff competition from courses built to a better standard, that are open throughout the year and often do not charge any entry fee.
Bobby Weed, an American architect wrote recently about the development of “start-over” projects in the USA. The principle of the start-over course being initial purchase at relatively low cost followed by subsequent redevelopment. This re-development often resulted in an increase in membership or green fees, often by as much as a 66% to 100% .
Is this entirely realistic in the British market? Many courses are on the market at the moment and most are sold. But spending more money on redevelopment? Not often.
However assuming that there are no fairy godmothers around the corner, some developers might consider the revenue raised from using imported fill material to recreate the golf course that had originally been hoped for. Imported fill is, by its very nature an unglamorous concept. This fill material is not lumps of concrete or brick – it is natural subsoil. It is subsoil brought from other building sites, by lorry, to the golf course. It means lorries driving onto the course on specially prepared hardcore tracks, on a frequent basis and it means the reappearance of topsoil and subsoil heaps and golf holes under construction - yet again. Days that most developers and members thought they were well past. On the other hand it can mean a useful and steady source of income. An income that can be used to upgrade the course to reconstruct the greens and tees and even improve otherwise colourless areas on the course.
No one should assume that such a procedure is straightforward. Planning permission will be required as the project often entail fairly major engineering works and permission is often difficult to negotiate. Furthermore many local authorities would prefer to see existing quarries reinstated to former levels before an existing golf course is improved and a strong case needs to be made to satisfy these concerns. On the other hand these planning complications are somewhat offset by the fact that the site already has planning permission for golf and authorities are often keen to help upgrade an existing development. As long as no environmental damage is done - in fact the authorities would expect to see an improvement in wildlife habitats, landscaping and flood prevention, the planning authorities can be quite helpful.
Projects can take on various levels. One course we are currently working at is undertaking the works over a seven year period with three new holes constructed in phase one and thereafter a further three holes being taken out of commission every year. Another course is developing a further nine holes so that, after this 9 holes comes into play the remaining 18 holes will be reconstructed in two phases. I know of another course where fill material was imported to re-level a practice ground - again quite a large project. It might be possible to consider infill material for smaller projects like bunker construction, but the need for special haulage routes and the rather haphazard nature of these jobs might preclude their consideration.
For large scale projects importation of infill material is certainly worth considering.
However there is a major downside to the use of land infill material because, apart from the ongoing re-construction works, such a project is by definition disruptive both to the playability of the course and to the membership, to green fees and to societies.
There are no real solutions to this disruption and whilst no golf club owner warms to the idea of losing societies or members, the approach of such development is to look to the future and accept that say, after a couple of years completion, the resultant golf course is a good quality facility, well designed and constructed and in better shape to look to the next 100 years. There is also the sweetener that there is still at least an income from the importation of fill material.
Simon Gidman March 2005
Copyright © 2005 Simon Gidman IGCA All Rights Reserved.