[Adam_F_Collins]

My Father-In-Law has done several home renovations. He raves that it is so much easier to build from scratch than it is to deal with another builder's work.

Is it the same for golf course design?

Is it more difficult to envision a golf course when there is an existing course right there in front of you? Do the existing green sites and routing make it more difficult to plan a new one?

Or is it just another topography with less clearing to do?

Perhaps it's easier...?

[Yannick Pilon]

In my only experience with this, I found it was like any other place to build a golf course on.  The owners of the existing course had bought more land and they were hoping to get a better course out of their new piece of land.  But their first course was not much to start with.... The site was actually pretty flat so it wasn't as if we were going to ignore perfect green sites that already used by the other course....

So we took the topo map we were given, and started from scratch, just like we would have done with any other piece of land.

[wsmorrison]

I can't say whether or not it is harder or easier to design on existing courses or from scratch.  

It does however make for an interesting architectural study when redesigns are made to an existing course because it gives insight as to what the redesign architect and club feel was wrong with a golf hole and course and also what their thoughts are about the necessary changes to make.  

Of course, to fully understand this you have to know what was there before and what was the changes were.  But if you have the necessary materials, it is an fascinating study.  

[TEPaul]

Personally I feel it's harder to totally redesign an existing golf course, and certainly if it meant rerouting it too than routing and designing a course on raw land. Others may feel differently, of course. Here's why I feel that way.

Routing and designing a golf course is sort of like doing a jigsaw puzzle---the only real difference being in golf architecture, in a sense, you get to make the pieces first.

Would it be easier to make the pieces and fit them together on raw land or to have to take them all apart, reform them and put them back together again?

I think the former is easier and the latter harder simply because with the latter you'd always feel a certain lack of latitude or freedom along the way.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Tom

In your neighborhood, Bobby Weed did a pretty good redoing White Manor.

Steve

[Mike Nuzzo]

It really has to be worth changing the existing tree corridors (i.e. a special land feature to be incorporated), as it can be quite expensive or garrish looking when done.

An average golf course can be drastically improved without changing the routing.... so sometimes easier, if improvement is the goal.

And yes, harder as you can't optimally make the most of the land, because golf is already part of the land.  

On raw land there is less opportunity for pyrrhic actions.

Pyrrhic:
achieved at excessive cost; also : costly to the point of negating or outweighing expected benefits

[paul cowley]

 I feel its harder only if the site has pre-existing constraints that can't be overcome, i.e. not enough length, undersized corridors,inadequte budjet, extreme or unfavorable  topography that cannot be altered,  etc.......otherwise it can be a challenging and rewarding exersize.....it can really be fun re-assessing a sites inventory of positives and negatives to be able to produce something whose value exceeds what was originally there.  

[RJ_Daley]

I don't know if it is harder or not.  I suppose it is dependent upon how much of the existing course assets are available to contribute to the new design.  Like Paul Cowley says above,

it can really be fun re-assessing a sites inventory of positives and negatives and being able to produce something whose value exceeds what was originally there.

I like that sort of thinking.  I think it takes a specialized and focused mind to do so, or want to approach existing course remodelling (not restoration).  And, I think there must be a certain talent for devising a plan of construction that 'conserves' in such a way as to not wastefully spend the existing entity's money just to bomb out the site and not use anything from the previous inventory.

I saw that Bobby Weed got much praise for a redo of the University of Florida course.  Does anyone know how that all worked out some years ago?  

[Tyler Kearns]

Adam,

Not necessarily harder, but more complicated due to existing constraints. Irrigation pipe and heads, wire and subsurface drainage must be tied into or worked around, not to mention tying the new contours into the existing terrain in a seemless fashion. Proper planning is required to move the necessary materials and machinery around on site with the least disruption to the non-renovated turf areas. Further, depending on the scale on the work being done, staging the work so as to minimally disrupt the daily routine of the membership.

TK

[TEPaul]

"Tom
In your neighborhood, Bobby Weed did a pretty good redoing White Manor.
Steve "

Steve:

Bobby Weed did a wonderful job on White Manor. The routing is pretty much intact though. He shifted and altered a number of holes and redid basically all the greens.

As good a job as he did, though, I think there are 2-4 things that should be tweaked or redone. It wouldn't be much, basically just two areas of two greens. I'm not sure I totally agree with his alteration of the 7th hole though. He shortened it a lot and made it basically driveable for long hitters. Only problem is long bombers who go at that green can really endanger people on #15 fairway if they hit it right. Rather than doing anything to the architecture which would be too bad they should probably just remove the trees between those two holes so at least players on the tee on #7 could see the golfers on the 15th.

The greens I think need a slight tweak are #13 and #9.  I think it's #9---half the time I think #9 is #18 and vice versa.

[Jason Mandel]

Tom, the fairway next to 7 is 17, not 15.  I can tell you that players very rarely hit it from 7 tee into 17 fairway, more often than not its vice versa, with players deciding to play down 7 on number 17.

The green you are referring to is 9, but it used to be the old 18, which is why you are getting a little confused.

Ps.  the short game area opened today and it is awesome!

Jason

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()