Restoring a golf course to its original design has become more popular in the United States. Architects like Gil Hanse and Andrew Green are in high demand and often turn down projects because their schedules are full. Goat Park golf course restoration is one example of a project where careful attention to detail is required to stay true to the original vision. Over the past 20 years, many top golf courses have undergone restoration, but despite these efforts, many end up looking more modern than historical. Why is this?
The main reason is that wealthy golf clubs often combine architectural restorations with infrastructure upgrades. While architects like Hanse and Green focus on restoring historical features like bunker placements, tee positions, and green shapes, clubs also replace outdated irrigation systems, improve drainage, and install modern turf and technology. This mixture of historical design with modern infrastructure results in courses that appear fresh and new, even though their layout remains rooted in history. A prime example is the $30 million renovation of East Lake Golf Club, home of the PGA Tour’s Tour Championship. Green’s work involved rebuilding almost every feature of the course, relocating tees, greens, and bunkers, and extending the course to 7,455 yards. Although Green based his design on a 1949 aerial photograph, this was a renovation, not a true restoration.
Today, most so-called “restorations” are driven by the need to upgrade infrastructure. Tyler Rae, a leading architect, explains that many golf clubs have outdated irrigation systems, which are leaking and inefficient. These systems, installed in the 1980s and 1990s, need replacing. When clubs contact architects, they often begin with upgrading the irrigation system, and then decide to make other improvements to the course, like updating bunkers, greens, and tees. According to Rae, about 94% of renovation projects start with the need to replace the irrigation system, with additional changes added in.
The approach to golf course restoration has evolved over the years. In the 1980s and 1990s, architects made small, incremental changes to courses over several years, preserving the original design. These projects were slow and gradual, keeping the course’s character intact. In contrast, modern golf clubs usually choose large-scale, expensive renovations, spending millions of dollars to overhaul the course all at once. These larger projects result in a more modern look, diverging from the original design.
So, what’s driving these expensive renovations? One factor is money. Bruce Hepner, a well-known architect, points out that golf clubs are now willing to spend millions on improvements, especially after the economy rebounded post-2010. Many clubs complete all the work at once, leading to a modern look. Other factors include rivalry between clubs and the desire for a “wow” factor. When one club invests millions, others may feel pressured to do the same to stay competitive. Large-scale renovations attract attention, while smaller restoration projects don’t create much buzz.
Superintendents, who are responsible for maintaining the course also influence these decisions. Many superintendents want to use the latest technology, leading to bigger changes. Some clubs are making these major investments with the hope they won’t need further updates for decades.
