Just last April, I posed the question: “Is the Cost of Golf Sustainable?”. More recently (January 19, 2024), my good friend Brad Klein expertly examined the rising cost of golf course renovations for the USGA Green Section Record. Both articles are relevant to my recent conversation with veteran golf course architect Ron Prichard on the topic of golf course restoration.
First and foremost, it’s critical to understand the difference between the two. Webster’s Dictionary offers the following comparison of the terms:
What Is the Difference Between renovate, renew, and restore?
Renovate, renew, restore, refresh, and rejuvenate all mean to make like new. Renovate (a word ultimately derived from the Latin verb novare, meaning “to make new,” itself a descendant of novus, meaning “new”) suggests a renewing by cleansing, repairing, or rebuilding. Renew implies a restoration of what had become faded or disintegrated so that it seems like new (“efforts to renew the splendor of the old castle”). Restore suggests a return to an original state after depletion or loss (“restored a piece of furniture”). Refresh implies the supplying of something necessary to restore lost strength, animation, or power (“a refreshing drink”). Rejuvenate suggests the restoration of youthful vigor, powers, or appearance (“she was rejuvenated by her new job”).
They sound the same.
As explained by Prichard, a golf course renovation is basically a new golf course, with the stamp of the renovating architect boldly apparent. Conversely, a restoration is a process whereby the intent of the original architect is preserved or restored, often based on old drawings or plans to make the course play as originally intended. The primary focus areas in a restoration project are often nothing more than adding length to the golf course with new teeing areas to accommodate modern athletes and equipment, “relaxing” putting surfaces to their original sizes and possibly restoring bunkers (preferably in the same places) to their original intent of challenging the player to similar shots as intended.
While it is not uncommon for many clubs to use the terms interchangeably, not only are the goals for renovation and restoration different, so are the motivations. In most cases, the intent with renovation is to “remodel” (if you will) the golf course and make substantial alterations. Restoration, on the other hand is typically done at older courses originally done by famous architects of yesteryear (think Ross, Tillinghast, Raynor, etc.) with an eye toward history and preservation.
To quote Vaughn Halyard and Jeff Mingay from “Golf Course Architecture”, “The restoration of original golf course designs from the pre-World War II era has become relatively big business. A number of contemporary golf course architects exclusively work at reversing the effects of natural evolution and redesign at aged courses these days, restoring bunkers, removing trees, expanding green surfaces and widening fairways back out to their original parameters.
Restoration was not, though, part of golf’s lexicon in 1983 when Texarkana Country Club asked golf architect Ron Prichard to have a look at improving its historic course. Texarkana Country Club is a stone’s throw over the Texas state line in neighbouring Arkansas. Following stints working as an associate to golf architects Joe Finger, Desmond Muirhead and Robert von Hagge, Prichard had recently established his own practice based in the Woodlands outside Houston. Prichard, who played college golf at Middlebury (VT), where he majored in Fine Arts & Economics found that such projects were “his calling” and pursued restoration assignments as a way to distinguish himself from the competition. Hence, he became known as the “Father of Restoration” and focused his career on restoring courses designed by many of the golden age masters, initially inspired by ‘The Monster” Golf Course at the Concord in New York.
His philosophy in restoration is to change as little as possible compared to the original design preserving the original challenge. He stresses “meaningful” bunkers. Economically, the decision to restore, rather than renovate can make a huge difference in the cost of the project, if “value-engineered” by installing sensible but efficient irrigation, managing the amount of maintainable turfgrass and avoiding the addition of features not originally present. Prichard suggests that even though the original architect may not have been a marquis name, the design may well have been worth restoring rather than scrapping for a modern marquis name. He seeks to avoid “putting his stamp” on a restoration project. When I asked Prichard about the impact of the rolled back golf ball, he sees it as a positive and is all for it, whether bifurcated or not. He advocates maintaining the original green contours and managing green speed at no more than 11.5’+/- to preserve the challenge of undulations.
Given the high and increasing costs of renovations as outlined in the Klein article linked above, restoration with an eye on controlling costs can be both an economic and environmental advantage to the golf course needing some attention. As many clubs are rife with “politics”, decisions can be influenced by those with motivations of leaving their stamp on the club which can prove economically fatal, especially if substantial debt is incurred. Restoration, done with an eye toward sound cost management and future operating expenses can be the difference between economic feasibility for the long term and a club swimming upstream in a sea of debt that can spell the difference between survival and failure. Prichard says restoration should be more cost-effective.
Whether renovation or restoration, as Klein points out, every project needs to assess its return on investment (ROI). In the appraisal world we call this the theory of contribution. In other words, does the cost incurred contribute an equal amount to the value received?
Depending on the goals and objectives, ROI can be either economic, cultural or both. In addition to evaluating the economic ROI, it’s imperative to do a club culture profile to evaluate the benefit to the club of the project. This analysis should consider both present and future members to determine the willingness to absorb the cost of the improvements and likely downtime, whether as an assessment, debt or both, along with the potential economic benefit to the club or owner.