Hempstead restoration is best read as a design correction project with a long schedule, rather than a single-season renovation. Hempstead Golf & Country Club on Long Island, New York, has launched a multi-year restoration of its A.W. Tillinghast course, with work scheduled to run through 2033 and the current architecture team identified as Zinkand Golf Design, led by David Zinkand, in partnership with Joel Weiman of Weiman Golf Design, according to the Club + Resort Business report.
The available record supports a cautious reading. The plan includes major bunker work targeted for 2028 and 2029, a repositioned “Great Hazard” at No. 13, changes to holes 16 through 18, opened sight-lines from the clubhouse, a clearer distinction between the outward and inward nines, and native prairie elements tied to the historic Hempstead Plains setting. Those are meaningful design signals, but exact hole-by-hole yardages, green dimensions, and restored bunker counts were not supplied in the research. That limits any firm shot-by-shot claims at this stage.
Why Hempstead Restoration Starts With Tillinghast
Hempstead Restoration As A Stewardship Project
The Hempstead restoration plan sits between preservation and adaptation. The stated aim is not only to retain older character, but also to adjust the course for contemporary golfers while respecting features members have valued over time. That distinction matters. A restoration that only recreates old visuals can fail if modern driving distances make hazards irrelevant. A renovation that ignores prior intent can erase the strategic logic that made the course worth protecting.
At Hempstead, the supported details point toward a middle course: recover sight-lines, sharpen strategic questions, and reintroduce site-specific planting without treating history as a static museum piece. For readers interested in how design choices influence play beyond appearance, our related analysis of golf course architecture gives useful context for reading projects like this one.
Evidence Before Opinion
From an architecture standpoint, the strongest claim that can be made now is that the plan targets strategic relevance. The Great Hazard on No. 13 is not merely being preserved as a named feature; it is planned to be repositioned to matter more for modern play. The final three holes are also set for work meant to enhance risk-and-reward choices. Those details suggest the architects are studying where older hazards and corridors still influence decision-making, and where they may need adjustment.
The Design Record Behind The Work
From Peter Lees To A Full Eighteen
The course did not begin as a Tillinghast-only composition. Its documented development started with nine holes designed by Peter Lees in 1921, followed by Lees’s full 18-hole layout by 1923. The course now plays to par 72 from the back tees and stretches over 6,700 yards, according to a Long Island Golf Course Superintendents Association document. That baseline helps explain why restoration language at Hempstead must account for more than one design phase.
For Hempstead restoration, the Lees-to-Tillinghast sequence is central. A course with layered authorship requires choices about which lines, bunkers, and visual features are most significant. The research does not provide a full architectural plan, so it would be inaccurate to assign every planned change to a specific historical source. What can be said is that the project aims to bring more of the original design intent back into view while preserving a playable member course.
Tillinghast’s 1927 Intervention
In 1927, A.W. Tillinghast carved seven new holes from woods, added bunkers, and rerouted all 18 holes. That is a major intervention, not a light revision. Rerouting changes how a course builds rhythm: where strong holes appear, how players move between open and tight corridors, and how late-round pressure is staged.
The planned distinction between an outward nine described as more expansive and an inward nine described as tighter is especially relevant. If the restoration opens clubhouse sight-lines and clarifies that contrast, players may experience a more legible front-to-back progression. The first nine can feel broader and more open, while the inward side can ask for tighter control. That kind of sequencing is often where classic design becomes visible to golfers who are not studying old plans.
Strategic Features Under The Master Plan
No. 13 And The Great Hazard
The Hempstead restoration detail likely to attract the most design interest is No. 13 and its Great Hazard. The research says the feature will be repositioned to reflect more strategic relevance for modern play. That wording is important. It does not confirm the exact new location, shape, carry distance, or penalty value. It does tell us the feature is being evaluated against how golfers play the hole now.
A hazard with historic identity has to do more than look old. It should influence line, club selection, and tolerance for a miss. If a named hazard no longer affects a reasonable range of players, moving or reshaping it can be consistent with restoration rather than contrary to it. At No. 13, the design question will be whether the Great Hazard again creates a clear choice without becoming a blunt penalty for only one class of player.
The Sixteenth Through Eighteenth Holes
Holes 16 through 18 are planned for work that enhances risk-and-reward elements. That is a significant late-round focus. Finishing holes shape memory, match outcomes, and member discussion because decisions made there tend to carry higher emotional weight. A risk-and-reward finish should offer more than forced difficulty. The best version asks whether the golfer’s position, confidence, and shot pattern justify taking on a bolder line.
Because the research does not include diagrams, exact hazards, or green targets for the restored finish, the analysis should stay at the planning level. The supported point is that the closing stretch is being reworked for decision value. The performance test will be whether those holes give different player types credible options, rather than one obvious conservative route and one reckless route.
Prairie Elements And Formal Features
The master plan also calls for native prairie elements alongside formal architectural features. That pairing is notable because it places the course in relation to the historic Hempstead Plains setting while retaining the structured shapes associated with golf architecture. The restoration is not described as a full naturalization of the property. It is described as a reconnection using prairie elements together with formal design features.
- Major bunker renovation work is targeted for 2028 and 2029.
- No. 13 is planned to receive a repositioned Great Hazard.
- Holes 16 through 18 are planned for enhanced risk-and-reward play.
- Clubhouse sight-lines are intended to be opened.
- The outward nine is described as more expansive, while the inward nine is described as tighter.
For readers seeking extended sports insight within the same network, noticiasbo.com provides an editorial perspective, showcasing content from across the network, although the golf design details here originate from specific sources.
What Hempstead Restoration Means For Playability
Modern Relevance Without Erasing Character
What Hempstead restoration means for golfers will depend on execution through 2033. The available facts show a plan that treats playability as part of stewardship. That is a sound premise for a member course, because daily golf differs from one-off championship setup. Hazards should matter, but they also need to fit a range of teeing grounds and skill levels.
The back-tee length of more than 6,700 yards and par-72 structure establish Hempstead as a full-scale course, but length alone does not define interest. The more telling features are the rerouted heritage, the different character of the two nines, and the planned recalibration of bunkers and closing-hole decisions. If the bunker work in 2028 and 2029 follows the stated master plan, those hazards should help explain where players are meant to challenge the course and where placement is the better choice.
Reading The Course During The Project
Golfers evaluating the course during a multi-year project should be careful about judging isolated changes too early. A restored bunker, a widened view from the clubhouse, or a prairie edge may not make full sense until adjacent phases are complete. Since the schedule runs through 2033, the course should be read as a staged work in progress as of September 10, 2026.
The best reading of Hempstead restoration is therefore evidence-based and patient. The project is anchored in a documented design timeline: Lees in 1921 and 1923, Tillinghast’s major 1927 rerouting, and a current master plan led by Zinkand Golf Design with Weiman Golf Design. The planned work on No. 13, the closing three holes, bunkers, sight-lines, and prairie elements gives the project clear architectural stakes. Until more hole-level data is public, the fairest analysis is that Hempstead is trying to restore strategic meaning, not just period style.