Restoration or Renovation? The Debate Over Preserving Classic Golf Courses

Across the golf world, a quiet but passionate debate is shaping the future of course design: should clubs restore their historic layouts to the architect’s original vision, or renovate them to meet the demands of modern play?

From century-old private clubs in New England to championship venues preparing for major tournaments, this question has become one of the defining issues in contemporary golf architecture. The discussion reaches beyond mere aesthetics — it touches on history, technology, sustainability, and the very soul of the game.

When a course built for hickory shafts now hosts players carrying 460cc drivers, some argue that preservation without adaptation is naïve. Others believe that in altering these masterpieces, golf risks losing its artistic heritage — the strategic nuance and architectural charm that make the game timeless.

The truth, as with most debates in golf, lies somewhere in the middle.

Restoration: A Return to Intent

To “restore” a golf course is to recapture its original intent — to bring back the design features, strategy, and feel envisioned by its creator. It’s an act of historical archaeology as much as architecture.

Restoration projects typically begin with old photographs, hand-drawn routing maps, and even aerial imagery from the 1930s and 1940s. Architects like Tom Doak, Gil Hanse, Jim Urbina, and Brian Silva have made their reputations by breathing life back into classic designs by Donald Ross, C.B. Macdonald, and Seth Raynor.

The appeal of restoration is emotional as much as practical. These projects reconnect golfers to an era when strategy — not brute force — was the measure of skill. Hazards were placed to test angles, greens were designed to accept running shots, and beauty came from natural landforms rather than ornamental landscaping.

Consider The Country Club in Brookline, Massachusetts, which underwent a careful restoration by Gil Hanse before hosting the 2022 U.S. Open. Over the decades, the course had lost some of its bold contours and original bunkering schemes. Hanse’s team studied aerials and club archives, restoring the irregular, jagged bunkers and strategic cross-hazards that once defined the layout. The result was not a reinvention but a rediscovery — a championship venue that still felt rooted in 1890s craftsmanship.

Similarly, Fishers Island Club and Sleepy Hollow Country Club, both inspired by Macdonald and Raynor’s “template holes,” have seen restorations that celebrate rather than rewrite their architectural DNA.

When golfers stand on the “Redan” or “Biarritz” holes today, they experience nearly the same visual and strategic puzzle that players did a century ago.

For purists, this is the ultimate goal: to preserve the genius of the masters, not overwrite it.

Renovation: Adapting to the Modern Game

Restoration may satisfy the soul, but renovation often satisfies reality.

As technology has transformed golf, the sport’s classic courses have faced immense pressure. A hole designed to challenge a 220-yard tee shot in 1920 now sees players carrying the ball 280 yards or more. Greens built for slower speeds now roll at 11 on the Stimpmeter. Maintenance budgets, environmental regulations, and member expectations have all evolved dramatically.

Renovation — reworking holes or rerouting layouts — aims to keep these historic courses relevant in a modern context.

Augusta National Golf Club offers the most famous example. Nearly every hole on the course has been lengthened or altered since Bobby Jones and Alister MacKenzie opened it in 1933. Yet, rather than losing its character, Augusta’s careful modernization has preserved its shot-making spirit while adapting to the contemporary professional game.

At other clubs, renovation isn’t about distance — it’s about playability and sustainability. Courses add forward tees for senior and junior players, reshape bunkers to reduce maintenance, or regrade fairways to improve drainage and reduce water use. These practical updates can keep a club viable without betraying its core identity.

However, critics of renovation argue that too many clubs use modernization as an excuse to sterilize or homogenize their layouts — erasing quirks and character in pursuit of “fairness” or visual polish. When done carelessly, renovation can turn living pieces of golf history into generic, over-manicured landscapes.

Sustainability: The New Common Ground

Interestingly, the most forward-thinking projects today often blur the line between restoration and renovation — united by a shared focus on sustainability.

Environmental concerns have redefined how courses approach every decision, from turf selection to irrigation systems. Many restorations now incorporate drought-tolerant grasses, native vegetation, and more efficient drainage systems. These upgrades protect the landscape and reduce long-term costs without compromising historic integrity.

Pinehurst No. 2, restored by Coore & Crenshaw in 2011, is a landmark example. The team stripped away acres of manicured rough to expose the course’s natural sandscapes and wiregrass — returning the look and feel of Donald Ross’s original while dramatically cutting water use. The project succeeded both as restoration and modernization, proving that environmental and architectural goals need not conflict.

Sustainability has become the meeting point for the old and new schools of design — where the romanticism of the Golden Age meets the realities of the 21st century.

Case Studies in Preservation and Progress

A few high-profile examples illustrate how nuanced this balance can be.

At Winged Foot Golf Club’s West Course, architect Gil Hanse undertook a “sympathetic restoration” — restoring A.W. Tillinghast’s bunkering and greens while subtly stretching the course to host the 2020 U.S. Open. The project maintained the course’s intimidating angles and narrow corridors, yet it now accommodates today’s professional power.

At Los Angeles Country Club’s North Course, Hanse again blended reverence with evolution. His restoration of George Thomas’s design brought back rugged bunkering and bold contours long lost to decades of softening. When the 2023 U.S. Open arrived, players found a course that felt simultaneously classic and current — a time capsule updated for modern competition.

Closer to home, Yale Golf Course is in the midst of a long-awaited restoration of Seth Raynor’s 1926 masterpiece. Years of overgrowth and neglect had hidden Raynor’s template holes and bold shaping. The project, led by Brian Schneider and the Hanse team, aims to uncover the drama and geometry that made Yale one of the most daring inland designs in America. When complete, it will showcase how historical fidelity and modern infrastructure can coexist beautifully.

Is “Better” Always Better?

At the heart of this debate lies a philosophical question: should golf courses evolve with technology, or remain as monuments to their creators?

Proponents of restoration argue that golf’s essence lies in its strategic nuance, not in raw length or perfect conditioning. Renovators counter that golf must adapt — that courses are living entities, not museum pieces.

As Tom Doak once remarked, “The best design is the one that reveals the land.” Whether that means rebuilding a long-lost bunker or reimagining a tee shot for the modern player depends on the site, the history, and the courage of those making the decisions.

The Future Lies in Balance

In the end, the divide between restoration and renovation may be less a battle line than a spectrum. The best projects — like those at Pinehurst, Brookline, and LACC — strike a balance between reverence and relevance.

They show that preserving the spirit of classic golf doesn’t mean resisting progress. It means guiding it with wisdom.

As golf continues to evolve, its greatest courses will thrive not because they change, but because they change thoughtfully — honoring the artistry of the past while embracing the possibilities of the future.