Gil Hanse Talks Oakmont Renovation Ahead of 125th U.S. Open

Tickets

Gil Hanse hasn’t officially been given the nickname “Open Doctor” – in fact, he shies away from such acknowledgement – like his predecessor Rees Jones, but the Philadelphia-based architect certainly has gained a reputation for his restorations/renovations of some of golf’s greatest championship venues. Hanse’s work includes Winged Foot Golf Club (2020 U.S. Open) The Country Club in Brookline, Mass. (2022 U.S. Open), The Los Angeles Country Club (2023 U.S. Open), past/future U.S. Open sites Oakland Hills Country Club and Merion Golf Club, past U.S. Open sites Baltusrol Golf Club, The Olympic Club and Southern Hills Country Club, past U.S. Women’s Open site Plainfield C.C. and past U.S. Amateur site Ridgewood Country Club. Two years ago, Hanse completed a restoration of Oakmont Country Club outside of Pittsburgh, Pa., which will host the U.S. Open for a record 10th time in June. USGA Senior Staff writer David Shefter talked to Hanse about his work at Oakmont in preparation for the 125th U.S. Open. 

Question: How long did it take to complete the project?

Hanse: We started the project in March of 2023, and it was completed by Halloween. We did it in sections. We closed the front nine in the spring and reopened all 18 by early summer. We closed the back nine on Labor Day and finished by the end of October.  

Question: Oakmont is considered one of the “cathedrals” in golf, and some believe it is the greatest U.S. Open test. So, when you’re asked to do a restoration at such a championship venue, how do you go about developing your game plan?

Hanse: It was very different than any other restoration plan that we’ve done because the Fownes family (specifically Henry and his son William) was so prevalent in the founding and creation of Oakmont [in 1904]. But they also were the architects and were actively involved in altering the golf course over a 40-year period. So, it wasn’t like [A.W.] Tillinghast who built a golf course in 1924 and that’s pretty much what it was. They literally changed the golf course every year.

What we decided to do was look through all the archives for the period that either Henry or William Fownes were alive and actively involved in the club. Look at the first hole. In our opinion for the modern game, the 1927 iteration was the best version. And then maybe the 1935 iteration was the best version for the second hole. The Fownes family was always involved in whatever the design revisions were, so we spanned the entire history of their involvement to come up with different ideas. So, it’s a little bit of an eclectic design as opposed to going back to a certain point in time.

The Fownes’ were good players, and they were adamant to protect that golf course, and like I’ve said before, it is unapologetically difficult, and that is what they wanted.

Queston: When you are tasked with restoring/renovating a layout such as Oakmont, are you almost afraid to touch it? Is it kind of like asking an artist to upgrade the Mona Lisa or the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel?

Hanse: With the research and the thorough study, I think we come into it with a certain confidence. Yeah, there’s always an excited nervousness because … it’s one of the [game’s] cathedrals. But you understand that the game has evolved, and that golf course has evolved dramatically, so it’s not like we are the first ones to ever put our fingers on it. Armed with the confidence of the research and with the knowledge that it has evolved more than any other championship golf course, we felt okay with making some significant recommendations, which are all historically based.

Question: When players arrive on site, what will be the biggest thing they notice about the changes since the U.S. Open was last contested at Oakmont in 2016?

Hanse: There’s only going to be about a dozen of them [or more] who played in 2016. The turnover is frightening when you think [it’s only been nine years]. The green expansions. There’s going to be a lot of new hole locations. The edges of the greens now are more like tabletops as opposed to having build-up along the edges. I think they are going to feel a little bit more difficult to hit into. We’ve managed to find a little bit more length (approximately 250 yards), so I think they’re going to feel that as well.

Question: Of the green expansions/restorations that you did, what are some of the more noticeable changes?

Hanse: [The green on] No. 2 has always been a tricky one to find hole locations. We’ve expanded it to restore some hole locations. No. 3. The removal of the front-right bunker … and just the way that green sits up on that hill. It’s more daunting to look at, and the new hole locations on the front-left will be very challenging. And 13 (182-yard par-3) is definitely the biggest change on the golf course. It’s different than any other green out there. It’s got so much contour in it and so many different pockets, which I think is appropriate being it’s the shortest par 3. The premium on accuracy there will be very high.

Question: Why was No. 13 one of the biggest changes? Did you enlarge the green? Did you alter the bunkering?

Hanse: It’s the ridge that cuts into the green from the right-hand side. Sort of back middle. And that plays into the new back hole location that plays over this ridge. If you get out of position on this green, there’s some real interesting putts that you might have to hit, which they all were. But the character in them [now] is quite interesting.

Question: Is it just a matter of time that greens begin to erode and start to shrink?

Hanse: That and the sand build-up from the bunkers. If you look at any of the photographs from 2016, the edges of the greens were almost all bowled up. So, they were retaining shots. Shots were staying on greens that if you look at the old, original photographs, those balls were rolling into bunkers. By eliminating those flare-ups on the edge, we’ve expanded the ability to put hole locations, and we’ve also made the bunkers more in play.

Question: Speaking of bunkers, you and your team did a lot of work on them at Oakmont. Was it more for drainage and aesthetics? Was it to make the course more challenging or a combination of both?

Hanse: Mostly for a practical standpoint. They hadn’t been rebuilt since before the 2007 [U.S. Open]. It was time. Drainage was failing. Sand was old. Then when we knew we had to get in there from a practical standpoint, it became a matter of how we make them stylistically better.

Question: Even the famous Church Pew Bunker between Nos. 3 and 4 was not immune to the project, correct?

Hanse: Both ends. Just again trying to get them more in play [to combat distance] for tee shots on 3 and 4…I think it was one or two pews on each end, so probably like 10-15 yards.

Question: Is that one of your biggest challenges as a modern-day architect? To combat the prodigious distances from the elite professional/amateur golfers?

Hanse: We can address it to some degree by adding tees. But where you can’t go back, you need to adjust the bunkers, the [penalty areas] to put them more in play.

Question: A few of the fairways were also widened in spots to create more strategy and options off the tee. What holes were affected?

Hanse: No. 2 for sure. No. 7, the tee shot is back to an [older] version of the hole. It’s much more strategic, but definitely wider. What we’re trying to do is look at the overall strategy of the golf course and provide different options … but also recognizing that it’s a members’ golf course and we want to make sure for the shorter-hitting members, there’s an opportunity for it to be a little bit wider. If they want to hit it a little shorter off the tee, they are going to have more room.

Question: But at Oakmont, the members are not bashful about their love of such a tough layout, correct?

Hanse: They are very proud of that. I think there and Winged Foot are the two places they feel like every day they set it up to host a U.S. Open.

Question: All these great courses that you have renovated/restored, is it a thrill to have the opportunity to make these championship layouts even greater?

Hanse: There are definitely pinch-me moments when you walk out there. It’s really amazing. I use the word a lot, but it’s great to be entrusted with being the stewards and helping to restore. It’s a big responsibility and one that we don’t take lightly, but it’s one where we feel comfortable in that role.

Question: Is there any internal pressure each time you get contracted to work on these classic gems?

Hanse: Obviously, these clubs have been very, very successful through the years and the membership understands and appreciates it. When the players come, they are vocal. They definitely have opinions, so you definitely want to cover that base as well.

Question: What kind of feedback have you received from the Oakmont hierarchy?

Hanse: Overwhelmingly positive. The directive when we left the Town Hall meeting when we presented the plan was: “It better not be easier when you’re done,” which is different. That obviously shows you the DNA of the club. And what I hear is it’s not easier.

Question: Such a daunting project requires great teamwork. Who were the key people who assisted?

Hanse: We had a great contractor. The two guys working with me on site were Kye Goalby (son of 1968 Masters champion Bob Goalby) and Matt Smallwood. They were terrific. Kevin Murphy from our office was great. Great contractors (Total Turf) from an irrigation standpoint and a golf course standpoint. Mike [McCormick], the superintendent, is a rock star. The Oakmont crew really helped a lot. When you have everyone pulling in the same direction together, it can come together that quickly. It had to be really well thought out and well-planned. Mother Nature cooperated, which is always the big unknown.