Restoration or renovation?: The 11th green at Toronto Golf Club gets a new location
I think Toronto GC may be the most important golf course in Canada. Not the best. Or the hardest. Just the most important. I can’t say I came to this conclusion on my own — I know several others who put forth this point and I’ve become convinced by their arguments.
So why is the course so important, especially for those who have never set foot on the club’s grounds? Like National Golf Links in Long Island, Toronto GC set the standard for all courses in Canada. Designed by Harry Colt, it came before all the other great courses in Canada — before Hamilton (another Colt design), before Scarboro, and before all the terrific Willie Park and Walter Travis designs. It is likely at Toronto GC that Stanley Thompson met and studied the work of Colt, and it was likely this experience that led him into golf design (alongside Toronto GC pro George Cummings, likely Canada’s most underrated designer).
All of this brings me to Martin Hawtree’s so-called “restoration” of Toronto GC, which is currently going on and the course is shut to members while work is underway. I say restoration because that is the term I keep hearing from the club and from Hawtree’s writing on the subject. After all, Hawtree is a supposed Colt expert — he has connections to Colt through his father. And Martin is a fine designer as far as I can tell. I’m very fond of his work at Tarandowah in Avon, Ont. and I continue to think this is the best value and one of the most enjoyable courses in all of Canada. It keeps me coming back, despite a couple of weak holes (namely 4 and 17).
Hawtree's work at Tarandowah
I started thinking about TGC’s work when an associate sent me the details of a blog by construction company TDI with offices in Canada and the U.S. that is doing the work at the course. TDI is regarded as one of the better golf construction firms in Canada. The firm bills itself as “classic restorations” (it is right there, under their logo) but I wonder whether TGC is a restoration in any way. Incidently, TDI is also doing the work at Toronto’s Lambton G&CC, but that one can’t be characterized as a restoration. It is a do-over, under the guidance of Rees Jones’ office. For the life of me that one makes little sense, but I digress.
So what is going on at Toronto? There is a new irrigation system planned and plenty of changes mandated by safety — namely moving the first fairway away from the entrance road towards the ravine, a change to #15 and the tees on 6 due to the entrance to the club, and two greens are being rebuilt — the great 11th and the 15th, which might be the best greensite on the property. I have no idea why the second green isn’t being redone — or the 16th — which are both Howard Watson greens, if my understanding of TGC’s history is correct. Also there will be new bunkers aplenty.
Now TDI are just following Hawtree’s directions. And Hawtree has the reputation of being a Colt “expert.” However, I’ve heard from several designers in the U.S. and abroad that they feel Hawtree is more interpretive than restorative. This has become a topic on Golfclubatlas.com, the foremost architecture site on the Net, where Paul Turner and golf architect Brian Phillips have raised questions about whether there are any restorative elements to the TGC work, or to Hawtree’s work in general.
Certainly Phillips points out that the bunkers at Sunningdale look nothing like those that Colt created at the course. That was reinforced by a photo sent to me by designer Martin Ebert, demonstrating what the bunkers at the New Course at Sunningdale looked like in Colt’s time. Today the work by Hawtree has cleaned up all the rugged edges and many feel the bunkers have far less character.
The green at the terrific 15th is being moved over safety issues.
My biggest question with the whole matter — aside from why TGC bothered in the first place — is how can a plan that moves two original greens be called a “restoration.” Truthfully there’s very little restoration taking place — it is a renovation of one of Canada’s classic courses, one that set the template for those that followed. Sure it is a bit short by modern standards, but no one is talking about hosting a Canadian Open there any time soon. And it has tough holes — like #5, #9, #11, and #17 — all of which make up for anything short on the rest of the property.
Colt's original bunkers at Sunningdale New in 1924. Much more intriguing than the grassed down look Hawtree is using at TGC.
“Restoration” is a buzzword these days — and a bit of a cliche. Rarely are true “restorations” done — though some will be sympathetic to the original aims of the designer. Is that the case with TGC and Hawtree? I can’t say — but I will state clearly that moving original greens, rerouting holes and making substantial alterations is not restorative.
I hope TGC and Hawtree gets this one right — they are tinkering with a piece of Canadian golf history.
For a tour of TGC, check out their site here.
A bestselling author and award-winning columnist, Robert Thompson has been writing about business and sports, and particularly golf, for almost two decades. His reporting and commentary on golf has appeared in 
I totally agree Robert. The line between a true restoration and a sympathetic renovation is often blurred and misrepresented. Below is a recent article from Golf Course Industry Magazine that talks about the work completed at Rolling Green GC outside Philadelphia by Forse Design as a ‘meticulous restoration’ that turns back the clock. Two paragraphs later they start describing the ‘strategic relocation of hazards matches contemporary golf equipment, regaining Flynn’s intended challenges while exuding his elegant simplicity’. Call a spade a spade.
http://www.golfcourseindustry.com//news/news.asp?ID=5327
well done RT – a worthy blog and not one mention of JD.
interesting that Hawtree (among other euros) seem to be selling this “safety” thing for reno work. Can a course be altered for safety ever be a true restoration? by definition, i think not.
I am not sure this debate is even worthy of discussion. Golf courses are pieces of land that continuously change. Trees grow higher and taller and sometimes die or are cut because they interfere with shot lines. Bunkers deteriorate and have to be restored every 5-7 years. Development around golf courses oftern interfere with original design of a golf hole. A restoration? A redesign? Who the heck cares. Augusta National in no way resembles its original design, but everyone considers this golf course to be among the world’s greatest. So what if changes are made. RT, you seem to imply that golf courses should retain their original character? Why? Most of these courses are member owned, and they are there to serve member needs. I don’t care who the architect is, if members want to change things, so what? This isn’t a painting that can be preserved in an environmentally controlled way. That is not possible for a golf course. The course is there to serve member needs, it doesn’t exist for any intrinsic purpose other than that. Get your head out of your ass man.
Since I am not playing TGC anytime soon and probably never, I’d like to see TDI cross the road and do some ‘restoration’ on Lakeview GC, especially #12.
Jim: I disagree with your questionable perspective. Augusta National as an example? Gosh, even the players themselves typically say it was more interesting before it became the Michael Jackson of golf courses.
Let’s address your points:
Your point: “Trees grow higher and taller and sometimes die or are cut because they interfere with shot lines. Bunkers deteriorate and have to be restored every 5-7 years. Development around golf courses oftern interfere with original design of a golf hole. A restoration? A redesign? Who the heck cares.”
RT: All of these things are true. But trees can be replanted or (preferably) cut down when they interfere with play. Happening all over the place — just look at Oakmont as the shining example of this.
“Augusta National in no way resembles its original design, but everyone considers this golf course to be among the world’s greatest.”
RT: I wouldn’t hold Augusta up as anything other than a multi-faceted vision of multiple club presidents trying to keep up with equipment changes because they hold a PGA Tour event. It isn’t indicative of the issues facing TGC.
“So what if changes are made. RT, you seem to imply that golf courses should retain their original character? Why? Most of these courses are member owned, and they are there to serve member needs.”
RT: You are correct — but the architect often sells the membership on those “member needs.” There are plenty of courses that are not significant historically or architecturally and have little character to retain. On the other hand, TGC is architecturally and historically significant, which is why I think it is appropriate to try to retain as many of the original features as is at all possible. And blowing up original greens isn’t necessary, IMHO.
“I don’t care who the architect is, if members want to change things, so what? This isn’t a painting that can be preserved in an environmentally controlled way. That is not possible for a golf course. The course is there to serve member needs, it doesn’t exist for any intrinsic purpose other than that.”
RT: Actually I entirely disagree. Golf course are “designed” — in this case by Harry Colt who had strong opinions on what makes a good golf course. There’s no reason that can’t be maintained or preserved. Simply because you say it is the case doesn’t make it so. Please demonstrate your point with an example. And you’re right, the course is there to serve the members’ needs, but how often have members tinkered over and over on their courses only to determine what they had in the first place was best?
“Get your head out of your ass man.”
RT: Thanks for strengthening your position was this ever-so-clever closing remark.
I can’t comment on the GolfClubAtlas thing (registration shut down) but I’d say adding a bunker at 11 green is by definition not restorative.
Also, whoever is taking the Contractor to task for the bunker work on the GCA forum is probably baeking up the wrong tree.
jim:
in some ways, you’re right. landscapes and golf courses evolve… but don’t sell us something that its not. “Restoration” v. “Renovation” may be nothing more than semantics and ego…
and this is where Hawtree has to come clean – or at least be upfront about his process. sympathetic restoration has its place – was this it? not sure. but if its not, don’t pretend it is.
One thing I do believe in this whole restore/renovate argument is that nostalgia, in all its forms, can be very, very dangerous when considering design and redesign (not just of golf courses).
“Nostalgia is killer”. Claude Cormier.
I totally agree! – recently played tarandowah and WOW what an amazing contrast to golf as we see it and the feudal efforts by many architects to establish “links style” courses.
I didn’t find 17 a problem but certainly 4 is a little weak. All this is overshadowed by the increasing vistas and pure character as the course evolves. From 8 on this course just continues to amaze. By far the best investment in “pure golf” anyone could make. After this who cares about TGC!
I guess Jim wouldn’t mind if the bulldozers turn up at St Andrews.
Martin Hawtree definitely sold this project as a restoration (or “restauration” according to Hawtree.co.uk, perhaps a Freudian?). He’s not claiming it’s a remodeling, so if he designs features are very different from Colt’s original then criticism is fair.
Hawtree also has a record of changing classic courses for safety reasons which other architects don’t see: Royal Melbourne East
paul:
restauration? really? restaurantation? wow.
and add Lahinch to the list with RME.