Just how would you describe a "bad site"

[JWL]

I read with interest where some were describing some courses that turned out well in spite of supposedly being built on "bad dirt".  I think it is interesting to read what some actually think a bad site would be to build a good golf course on.  
What would be some of the characteristics that you would consider together that would be the worst combination to build a great golf course?
What would be some the characteristics that combined would probably have the best chance of producing a great course?

Is it possible that some sites can only produce just a pretty good golf experience?   Should that be considered good design, or do you feel the course should not have been built if the land was not such that could , under any architects direction, produce a great course?

[Joel_Stewart]

I read with interest where some were describing some courses that turned out well in spite of supposedly being built on "bad dirt".  

I assumed that thread was on classical golf courses.  With todays budgets and earth moving equipment you can take any site (Shadow Creek as an example) and turn the desert into a forest or the forest into a desert.

I provided an example of Yale, which is well documented as being a terrible rocky hilly site and with the genius of Raynors routing and the hard work of many men and horses turned the site into a wonder.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Pete Dye has exhibited excellent design and engineering at places like TPC Sawgrass and Old Marsh in Florida, and PGA West for example, where very good golf courses were constructed upon sites that exhibited very little, if any, potential for golf - ie. uninteresting topography, poor soil conditions: characteristics that generally produced poor to mediocre golf course designs.

Coore and Crenshaw's Sand Hills, and Doak's Pacific Dunes for example, are courses laid out upon landscapes topographically suited for world-class golf - ie. interesting topography, relatively ideal soil conditions: characteristics with potential to produce world-class golf course designs.

Trust me, someone could have screwed up designs at both Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes. Coore and Crenshaw, Doak and co. didn't. That's excellent design as well, over ideal properties.      

To answer your question, JWL, some sites can only produce "just a pretty good golf experience", yes. Unless, of course, an exceptionally talented golf architect is in-charge, a la Dye at TPC Sawgrass. That is GREAT golf course design... anything less is either the result of lack of money or talent, or both.

[Tyler Kearns]

JWL,

Pancake flat terrain, heavy clay soil on an extremely narrow parcel of land with no offsite views that provoke a moment of escape.

Site constraints such as these may very well deny the construction of an awe inspiring golf course that looks like it belongs, however that does not mean it cannot have merit and should be abandoned. Without being able to rely on a magnificent setting or terrain, architects are forced to be more creative and efficient when presented with such constraints. The one drawback is that construction costs are more likely to be higher when the site is poor (offsetting any low land acquisition costs), because all features need to created, and not simply massaged a little or not at all to meet the standards required for golf.

Can a great golf course be created anywhere? Personally, I do not think so, beacause golf is more about the experience than simply the golf. That being said, I think all sites possess the opportunity to design a strategically sound and fun course, but the memory is more tied to the golfing as opposed to the overall experience. Truly inspirational golf is dictated by a great site, and that can not be designed, it can only be discovered.

Tyler Kearns

[Tom_Doak]

Bad site = bad drainage [worse with a high water table so you can't cut and fill to fix it], bad esthetics / visuals, or too much topography to fix with earthmoving.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JWL,

First, congratulations on qualifying for the US Senior Amateur, and good luck on site.  Say hello to Jerry Greenbaum for me.

As a starter, I'd describe a bad site as one replete with permiting and environmental restrictions/problems.

[Dale_McCallon]

JWL,

If we restricted golf construction to only sites that would lead to "great" golf courses, most people would never have the chance to play for one of two reasons.  First of all, there are only so many sites like Pac Dunes out there.  Not every region of the world is blessed with such great natural settings.

Secondly, if an architect was forced into extremes to build a great course with plethoras of man made influences the cost become so high it knocks out a large number of potential players.

Of course in an ideal world all courses would be great, but it can't happen.  Some courses, due to various causes, can only hope to be good, fun courses--and that is not a bad thing.

[JWL]

Patrick
Thanks for the encouragement.  I'll do my best, but my expectations are pretty low this year because my lack of time actually playing golf.  
Concerning the restrictions you mentioned, I think they can definitely be a considerable hindrance.

Tom  Doak
I think you have mentioned the one thing that ties the hands of GCAs more than anything else, a flat treed site with a high water table.   The off site visuals are quite often almost impossible to eliminate, as we well know.

Certain things can be overcome, but there are certain elements that just can't be overcome to produce a "great" golf course, no matter how brilliant a gca might be.  That is unless, when a very good, fun golf course is produced under those circumstances.   Maybe then the design could be considered "great", even if the course cannot fall into that category due to the encumbrances mentioned above.

Flat sites can be overcome.   Treeless sites can be overcome.
Bad soils can be overcome, somewhat.
Some things just can't be overcome within anything resembling a reasonable budget.

[cary lichtenstein]

Anything in Southern Florida

[Don_Mahaffey]

Terrible water quality, bad soils, weather extremes, poor labor pool, and extreme topography would make for a bad site I'd say. Building something nice is good, building something nice and maintainable should count also.

It's a bad site if the revenues needed to make the project work can't be earned.

The bigger question in my mind is when does an architect tell the client that it's a bad site and shouldn't be built? If you don't have the dollars to do it right, it can't be maintained properly. If you tell the client it shouldn't be built, he'll just hire someone else. Do you do a half ass job, overspend to make the course work knowing it's a bad deal for the client,  or do you walk away?

[A_Clay_Man]

Don- I recently heard that a few architects said that Pinon Hills couldn't be built on that site. They did hire another, and he did a fair job.

The only thing that I don't see an absolute need for, that all the Professional architects keep mentioning, is the need for some sureal overall visuals. This notion of escaping from somewhere or something, seems to have little to do with the sport. Especially since I find beauty in most places, but mostly because my home course has a refinery on it.

I'd site TT's Rawls course as having mundane vistas, yet thankfully the golf keeps your interest.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Adam,
Who turned the job down?
Just curious, was Dye responsible for the entire project or was the irrigation/drainage work a separate hire?

My point is, if they had to truck in a plating material, if they had to build a water treatment system such as reverse osmosis because the water was so bad, if they had to move A LOT of dirt and build a lot of bridges would the project be a success in a local like Farmington? Maybe in So Cal where you could get $150, but I doubt a project like that would fly in rural America.

It's a bad site for golf if the architect has to build something that can't be properly maintained with the dollars the course will generate. What may be a bad site in middle America may be OK in a large metro area where the dollars generated will cover proper maintenance. Golf courses on extreme sites cost more to care for.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Terrible water quality, bad soils, weather extremes, poor labor pool, and extreme topography would make for a bad site I'd say. Building something nice is good, building something nice and maintainable should count also.

It's a bad site if the revenues needed to make the project work can't be earned.

The bigger question in my mind is when does an architect tell the client that it's a bad site and shouldn't be built? If you don't have the dollars to do it right, it can't be maintained properly. If you tell the client it shouldn't be built, he'll just hire someone else. Do you do a half ass job, overspend to make the course work knowing it's a bad deal for the client,  or do you walk away?

Don,

You raise two excellent points.  More and more, an owner (who often picks the site well before contacting a gca, needs to add water quality and quantity to the due dilligence phase.  I don't see water quality issues getting any better.

The other thing I think makes a bad site is extensive floodplains.  Only once did I recommend a client consider a different site entirely - I had been called in to grade and drain an existing course to better protect it against frequent floods, and suggested that the site would always have too many problems. They declined, and we did raise fairways and add enough contour to drain water quickly, as soon as floodwaters recede.



I am working on a project now where the golf course was going to be in a substantial floodplain. When we started grading last year, it was quiclkly apparent how much work this was going to be and the city and developer agreed to migrate the site about a half mile north to higher ground.  Obtaining the property delayed the project a year......

It is still a challenging site - flat, nearly treeless, partially flood prone, and with the golf course used to buffer a myriad of railroad tracks from nearby housing that is planned.  I hope to turn the railroad into a positive - playing by the cinders in Scottish terms to gain an advantage.  Perhaps the boxcar riccochet will be my contribution to modern strategy!