News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Phil McDade

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Conflicting interests - Golf, Architecture and Environmental issues
« Reply #25 on: September 28, 2006, 05:26:47 PM »
Tom:

Before you buy the 250 acres, you might want to inquire with the local government about what their environmental set-aside requirements are. Developers (not speaking specifically about golf-course developers, but the broader issue of developers) do this all the time with their local governments, and figure it into the costing of their projects.

In one local government I'm very familiar with, the local town requires developers (proposing a new subdivision, e.g.) to pay for the entire cost of roads, sewers, utility extensions, street lights, and other related infrastructure, in addition to minimum acreage set-asides for park and recreaton -- either directly in the development itself, or in some other part of the town. Hasn't seemed to stop development; it's one of the fastest-growing communities in one of the fastest-growing counties in my home state.

Kirk Gill

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Conflicting interests - Golf, Architecture and Environmental issues
« Reply #26 on: September 28, 2006, 05:28:19 PM »
What if the result is that nobody develops golf courses anymore?  What if you bought 250 acres to build a golf course for the townfolk to enjoy, and they insisted you give 50 acres away?

Of course, the rub is that not many are buying 250 acres to build golf courses for the townfolk to enjoy right now. You yourself have said that the "economic model" for a public course isn't very workable at this point, and certainly land costs are a part of that. But wouldn't a local government be a lot less likely to make a land grab (ecologically sensitive areas aside) when dealing with a public course development than a private club/real estate development? If the course was really for the "townfolk" to play, would that be enough to get lot of local governments to play nice? Or is a developer a developer..........?
"After all, we're not communists."
                             -Don Barzini

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Conflicting interests - Golf, Architecture and Environmental issues
« Reply #27 on: September 28, 2006, 05:34:24 PM »
Kirk:

Yes, everyone will vote for taking money from the other guy.  That's why I have to pay a 15% rental car tax and a 10.5% hotel tax every time I take a trip.

What if the result is that nobody develops golf courses anymore?  What if you bought 250 acres to build a golf course for the townfolk to enjoy, and they insisted you give 50 acres away?


Tom Doak,

There's no question that it's a not so subtle form of extortion.

Paul T,

As to whether created wetlands function as well as natural ones I think you have to look at the question in the context of the response of either either Mao Tse Tung or Chou En Lai when they were asked to comment on the impact of the French Revolution.

I do know for a fact, in the State of NJ, that there is no distinction, under the law, between natural wetlands and created wetlands.

John Kirk,

I would imagine, as one who prefers or craves walking, that you found Garden City a delight to play.

You can't get the tee much closer to the previous green than you can on # 5 and # 11.

Ed Baker,

You hit the nail on the head, it doesn't feel like you're playing a golf course, it feels like you're playing 18 seperate, disconnected holes that have no relationship to the previous hole, or any other hole.   It's more of a collection of 18 seperate and isolated holes as opposed to a continuous flow of holes.

Many golf communities in Florida and the far west suffer from these routings as the holes weave in and out of the development.

Jupiter Hills in Florida provides a different feel.

For the most part the homes are on the perimeter of the golf course as opposed to within the golf course, and as such, the golf course feels like the holes are connected as opposed to being disjointed.

Tom Doak,

What I don't understand is the following.

How can a hole, or a series of disconnected holes, in the middle of the wetlands be acceptable, in their isolated and lone form, but, the idea of a continuous stream of several connected holes is unacceptable ?

I recently saw a picture of a golf course in the middle of what appeared to by wetlands.  There was a hole, a  long path connecting it to another hole, and a long path to another hole, and so on and so on until it looked like 18 holes connected by a string, yet, everyone of them appeared to be smack dab in the middle of wetlands.

It didn't appear that walking was an attractive alternative.

Sherwood in California has some walks from green to tee that make it unappealing or difficult to walk.  That might be a function of the home site preferences and/or environmental issues, but, irrespective of the cause, there's an inherent conflict in the quality of the golf course.

It has to FAIL the "intimacy/ease of the routing" and the "walk in the park" test.

And, if a course fails in those two categories, how can it achieve lofty status ?

There are some who feel that the walks at Sand Hills are a negative and that those walks create a bit of the feeling of disconnects between the holes.

While I recognize the uniqueness of the property at Sand Hills and the nature of high to low to high play of the holes, how did you approach this issue at Ballyneal, which I'm told has similar terrain ?

Sean Leary

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Conflicting interests - Golf, Architecture and Environmental issues
« Reply #28 on: September 28, 2006, 06:39:48 PM »
"Furthermore, we have non-native invaders such as canary reed grass and himalayan blackberry which are crowding out beautiful native plants such as wild rose and huckleberry."

John,

I heard that canary reed grass and himalayan blackberry is good stuff.  Play 36 in the morning on it and get stoned to the bejesusbelt on it that night..... ;)

« Last Edit: September 28, 2006, 06:42:10 PM by Sean Leary »

John Chilver-Stainer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Conflicting interests - Golf, Architecture and Environmental issues
« Reply #29 on: September 28, 2006, 07:17:20 PM »
On an aside -
Ecological Compensation for Golf Course Development is now standard in Central Europe or at least in Switzerland. A new golf course has to assign at least 33% of the total golf development area to NEW ecological areas. Existing specially protected environmental sites can’t be touched and don’t count in the 33%. It sounds restrictive - however the upside is that newer golf courses are surrounded by more nature than the earlier compact designs - thus making the courses visually more attractive.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Conflicting interests - Golf, Architecture and Environmental issues
« Reply #30 on: September 28, 2006, 07:49:37 PM »

Quote
Why would environmentalists be opposed to remediation, especially if it was on more than a 1 to 1 ratio ?


Not sure what remediation is supposed to accomplish.

You destroy nature in one area and to make up for that you destroy it in another area as well ?

No, it's a matter of replication or relocation of that which some feel is worth preserving.  If a field can be converted to wetlands, what's the net loss ?

Or, are you stating that farms and pastures should never have been created ?  Or, that those fields should be returned to their natural state ?


If an area is environmentally sensitive, it needs to be protected.

Why ?

Isn't EVERY area environmentally sensitive ?

If a working farm currently occupies 300 acres, why should a golf course planned for the site have to recreate or cede areas back governmental agencies or to their original state ?


Golf courses and housing should be built in areas that aren't.

Why ?

Should man be obligated to cede land to mosquitos ?

Have NGLA, Lido, Yale, Shinnecock, Southampton or Maidstone harmed the environment ?

Should New Orleans never have been built and inhabited ?


Exceptions can sometimes be made for natural courses, i.e. no watering, pesticides etc. - but few people want to play on rough courses like that.

Are you saying that farmers never should have watered their crops, never used fertilizer or pesticides ?

That cow manure should have been removed from the fields where the livestock grazed  ?

What harm has NGLA and Shinnecock done over the last 100 years ?

How about Seminole, Pine Valley, Chicago Golf Club, St Andrews and Newport ?


When building a Golf course the goal should be to improve the ecological qualities of the land.

Why ?

When building homes or creating farms, is that what's done ?

Shouldn't the goal be to build a golf course ?



PThomas

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Conflicting interests - Golf, Architecture and Environmental issues
« Reply #31 on: September 28, 2006, 08:29:20 PM »
Patrick:  it is a fact that most created do not function as well as the ones that they are "replacing"

some wetlands are better quality than others

some wetlands are so valuable that they should be forever preserved

it is also a fact that if some of the wetlands around New Orleans had been preserved, the flooding from Katrina could have been lessened

we learn as time goes on....some of the practices that were considered okay in the past - like filling in all wetlands - have been found to be harmful at times

and of course we need our farms...but, for example, overapplied manure can have serious human health consequences if it gets into our waters

199 played, only Augusta National left to play!

paul cowley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Conflicting interests - Golf, Architecture and Environmental issues
« Reply #32 on: September 28, 2006, 09:22:19 PM »
Thank God your're back at the controls Patrick Mucci, because I was starting to spiral....I tried to hit a key to respond but I ended up just jabbing and spending more time correcting what I was trying to write than what I was creating on the screen......I was actually writing in a reverse deficit...scary stuff!
paul cowley...golf course architect/asgca

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re:Conflicting interests - Golf, Architecture and Environmental issues
« Reply #33 on: September 28, 2006, 09:37:40 PM »
John C-S:  That would certainly explain why so many great golf courses have been opened in Switzerland recently.  ::)

Patrick:  The stupid thing about environmental regulations and golf courses is that nobody looks at the big picture as you are describing.  They locate wetlands and then buffers around them, but then you do what you will outside those buffers ... it might well be better to blow up three acres of wetlands and build the course on an otherwise dry part of the property, instead of stringing holes across islands in between the wetlands, but there is no agency which will make that call.

Kirk and Phil:  I give.  You seem to think developers are all evil and the town should take them for every dime they're worth; not much to discuss there.  Just curious, what you guys do for a living?

John Kavanaugh

Re:Conflicting interests - Golf, Architecture and Environmental issues
« Reply #34 on: September 28, 2006, 09:42:48 PM »
Lesson on government regulators...It is easier to keep what exists than confirm what is built..The first takes yellow tape and lathe..the second takes sweat and brains.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Conflicting interests - Golf, Architecture and Environmental issues
« Reply #35 on: September 28, 2006, 09:45:49 PM »

Patrick:  it is a fact that most created do not function as well as the ones that they are "replacing"

In the context of what time frame ?

Most have been created recently, hardly allowing sufficient time to evaluate their viability.


some wetlands are better quality than others

I'm sure that's true, but, one would have to define what constitutes "quality" or in what context it's meant.

And, one must look at wetlands, not in a single snap shot, as in a single frame, but over the length of the entire film or lifespan of the wetlands.

Many wetlands are now meadows due to the natural transitional process.


some wetlands are so valuable that they should be forever preserved

I'd tend to agree with that, 99 %.


it is also a fact that if some of the wetlands around New Orleans had been preserved, the flooding from Katrina could have been lessened.

I've heard arguments both ways.
Some have postured that those wetlands might be a part of the Gulf of Mexico today, and others have argued that the sediment from the Mississippi would have converted the wetlands and the Delta to another land form decades ago.

Excavations from major buildings in lower Manhattan formed the foot pad, in the Hudson, for additional buildings.
Was that a bad thing ?

There's a balance that needs to be struck and unfortunately, extremists seem to unduly influence common sense.


we learn as time goes on....some of the practices that were considered okay in the past - like filling in all wetlands - have been found to be harmful at times

Maybe, but,
Harmful to whom ?
To mankind ?

Again, there have been errors on both sides of the equation.
Common sense should prevail, but, it doesn't seem to be so common.

Man has had to live, farm and manufacture somewhere, and all three are closely connected


and of course we need our farms...but, for example, overapplied manure can have serious human health consequences if it gets into our waters

That's an extreme position.
The reality is, what farmer wants to waste a valueable resource ?  Over fertilizing costs money and doesn't benefit the farmer.  We know errors have been made, but, that doesn't mean that the farming process is flawed.  

Everyone expects perfection, the problem is, they expect it in and from everyone else.

There has to be a practical policy and application, absent extremism on both sides



Patrick_Mucci

Re:Conflicting interests - Golf, Architecture and Environmental issues
« Reply #36 on: September 28, 2006, 09:59:17 PM »
Paul T, et. al.,

The question remains, when a course makes concessions to environmental issues causing disconnects between green to tee, does that flaw become a fatal flaw ?

If they FAIL the "intimacy/ease of routing" and "walk in the park" tests, what's the highest ranking they could expect to obtain ?

Does the disconnect between the holes doom the golf course to mediocrity no matter how good the individual holes ?

PThomas

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Conflicting interests - Golf, Architecture and Environmental issues
« Reply #37 on: September 28, 2006, 10:01:27 PM »

Patrick:  it is a fact that most created do not function as well as the ones that they are "replacing"
ALL I KNOW IS THAT STUIDES HAVE FOUDN THE ABOVE TO BE TRUE PATRICK
In the context of what time frame ?

Most have been created recently, hardly allowing sufficient time to evaluate their viability.

some wetlands are better quality than others

I'm sure that's true, but, one would have to define what constitutes "quality" or in what context it's meant.
MANY PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT SOME WETLANDS ARE BETTER THAN OTHERS, IN TERM SOF THINGS LIKE HABITAT, ETC.....REPLACING ONE NATURAL WITH A CREATED ONE IS OFTENTIMES A TRADE DOWN IN QUALITY
And, one must look at wetlands, not in a single snap shot, as in a single frame, but over the length of the entire film or lifespan of the wetlands.

Many wetlands are now meadows due to the natural transitional process.


some wetlands are so valuable that they should be forever preserved

I'd tend to agree with that, 99 %.


it is also a fact that if some of the wetlands around New Orleans had been preserved, the flooding from Katrina could have been lessened.

I've heard arguments both ways.

i HAVEN'T HEARD THE OTHER ARGUMENTS PATRICK...THE STATEMENT THAT KATRIA'S DAMAGE WOULD HAVE BEEN LESS SEVERE HAD SOME OF THE WETLANDS IN THE AREA IS ACCEPTED
Some have postured that those wetlands might be a part of the Gulf of Mexico today, and others have argued that the sediment from the Mississippi would have converted the wetlands and the Delta to another land form decades ago.

Excavations from major buildings in lower Manhattan formed the foot pad, in the Hudson, for additional buildings.
Was that a bad thing ?
I DIDN'T SAY IT WAS!
There's a balance that needs to be struck and unfortunately, extremists seem to unduly influence common sense.

i THINK THAT'S TRUE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE FENCE
we learn as time goes on....some of the practices that were considered okay in the past - like filling in all wetlands - have been found to be harmful at times

Maybe, but,
Harmful to whom ?
To mankind ?
TO THE ENVIRONMENT SOMETIMES AND SOMEIMES TO MANKIND...FOR EXAMPLE, IF WE HAD KNOWN KNOW WHAT WE KNOW TODAY FLOODING IN URBAN AREAS COULD BE LESSENED IF WE HAD PRESERVED MORE WETLANDS, VS. JUST FILLING THEM IN

MY GRANDPA USED TO SAY RE:  DEVELOPMENT:  WHERE'S THE RAIN GOING TO GO?
Again, there have been errors on both sides of the equation.
Common sense should prevail, but, it doesn't seem to be so common.

Man has had to live, farm and manufacture somewhere, and all three are closely connected

 AGREED
and of course we need our farms...but, for example, overapplied manure can have serious human health consequences if it gets into our waters

That's an extreme position.

I DISAGREE....ANIMAL AND HUMAN WASTE CAN CAUSE SERIOUS HEALTH PROBLEMS

FOR EX, WHY ARE BEACHES OFTEN CLOSED?  IT'S BECAUSE WATER CARRYING THOSE POLLUTANTS WOULD MAKE SWIMMERS ILL IF THEY WENT IN IT
The reality is, what farmer wants to waste a valueable resource ?  Over fertilizing costs money and doesn't benefit the farmer.  We know errors have been made, but, that doesn't mean that the farming process is flawed.  

BUT THERE ARE ISSUES SOMETIMES...ANOTHER EXAMPLE, WHEN MANURE IS APPLIED ON FROZEN GROUND OFTENTIMES IT WINDS UP IN NEARBY WATERBODIES WHEN A THAW OCCURS

fARMING DOES CONTRIBUTE A LOT OF POLLUTION IN THIS COUNTRY

Everyone expects perfection, the problem is, they expect it in and from everyone else.

There has to be a practical policy and application, absent extremism on both sides


AGAIN AGREED...i THINK ALL INDUSTRIES NEED TO DO WHATEVER THEY CAN TO PREVENT POLLUTION..IT ANNOYS ME WHEN SOME OF THEN JUST POINT FINGERS AT OTHERS INSTEAD OF TRYING TO ADDRESS THEIR PROBLEMS AS WELL

199 played, only Augusta National left to play!

Phil McDade

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Conflicting interests - Golf, Architecture and Environmental issues
« Reply #38 on: September 28, 2006, 10:17:05 PM »
Tom:

Actually, there's a pretty good example (well, at least in golfing circles in Wisconsin, and maybe elsewhere) of the kind of environmental "switch" (for lack of a better term) that Pat Mucci describes. It happened at Whistling Straits, and I wholeheartedly endorsed Herb Kohler's efforts on the switch.

Kohler bought an old, deserted, dilapidated AND polluted military site near Haven, WI. He wanted to turn it into a championship course on the shores of Lake Michigan. He ran into a problem with the state natural resources department, who worried his development -- hundreds of acres -- would impact a smallish wetlands area on the property. Negotiations ensued, between Herb and the state, and eventually Kohler and Dye settled on a "no net loss" (I think the Straits was conceived and built during Bush I, who came up with this term) agreement, with Herb "creating" some new wetlands in return for building one of his clifftop par 3s on the old wetlands. Ironically, the wetlands were incorporated into one of the par 5s on the front nine (if memory serves me correctly) -- the one that double-doglegs around a lake/pond/wetlands. The hole has been criticized by many as being out of character with the rest of the Straits, and it is; Dye, however, says it's the hole that essentially allowed the Straits to be built, as it solved the wetlands issue. I've seen pictures of the Straits site prior to Herb's purchase of it, and walked the entire course during the recent PGA there. It's much improved, and a better use of the land, and it strikes me that the wetlands "trade" made sense in that respect. Whether that particular wetlands is better or worse for the environment, along Paul T's views, I couldn't say; the overall site is a clear, clear improvement over what was once there, and I say that as a taxpaying citizen of Wisconsin (the Straits, presumably, contributes to both local property taxes and state sales taxes through its business).

In general, I support development. It allows many in our country to realize the American dream of owning a home. Unnecessary restrictions on development (related to housing) drive up the cost of all housing, particularly for the middle class and poor, whose best escape from poverty -- I believe -- is owning property. Development creates jobs, sustains economies both locally and nationally, and helps keep us competitive in a global economy.

But, I also believe development comes with some degree of obligation toward the public good. Our society, I believe, is strengthened by strong public entities, whether it be schools, libraries, bike trails or environmental set-asides. One can always debate to what extent our tax dollars -- and public officials who spend them -- should go to support that, and the role that private enterprise is involved in that. That debate is likely to be different in a state with the politics of Utah compared to those of, say, Massachussetts (not that I'm taking sides!).

In short, I don't think "developers" are "evil," nor should "towns" take them "for every dime they're worth." Whistling Straits, to my view, shows that informed negotiations can result in golf-course development that arguably doesn't hurt the environment and by all measures improves the overall nature of the property where it was sited.

My experience -- as someone who serves part-time for a local government entity -- is that if citizens do object to practices of their local government, they tend to demonstrate their displeasure at the voting booth. Give citizens a little more credit here -- I think they are pretty well-informed.

John Kirk

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Conflicting interests - Golf, Architecture and Environmental issues
« Reply #39 on: September 28, 2006, 10:30:45 PM »
Pat,

To crave walking is a pretty strong term, but I'd say the ability to walk is the single most important attribute a course can possess.  Garden City GC is a very logical and simple walk, but also possess a good variety of holes, with a routing that changes the direction of play every hole or two.  Nice place, and thanks again for the round and the short game lesson.

Back to the topic...

In cases like Pumpkin Ridge, a logical hole flow is easily achieved despite the wetlands restrictions.  Other plots of proposed golf land may not be as conducive to easily walkable routing.

Wetlands preservation is all about maintaining habitat for native species of plants and animals.  I have to believe that every land modification affects the surrounding area significantly.  I'm sure golf courses, just like housing tracts and other building developments, are quite destructive.

paul cowley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Conflicting interests - Golf, Architecture and Environmental issues
« Reply #40 on: September 28, 2006, 10:31:48 PM »
Phil, well balanced post.....and I think I will now return my last remaining QQualuuude, left over from the 70's, back in its special hiding spot.......as its time had almost come.

I think we might just want to wait........a little longer.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2006, 10:40:43 PM by paul cowley »
paul cowley...golf course architect/asgca

Kirk Gill

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Conflicting interests - Golf, Architecture and Environmental issues
« Reply #41 on: September 29, 2006, 11:00:29 AM »
Kirk and Phil:  I give.  You seem to think developers are all evil and the town should take them for every dime they're worth; not much to discuss there.  Just curious, what you guys do for a living?

I in no way think that. There's a lot of open land in the area where I live, and it is interesting to watch the give and take between those who wish to develop it and those who want to stop any development, and all the opinions in-between. There have been some poorly thought-out and poorly executed developments down here, and some people are very dubious about claims made by developers. At the same time, there have been some very well done developments, and many people (like myself) know that the open areas are going to be developed, and just hope that the new construction is going to add to our community and not detract from our quality of life. As Don Barzini said, "After all, we're not communists."

My main interest is in golf courses, and how they are built, and the negotiations that have to take place to make them happen. There's obviously been some developers here who were successful in their negotiations on that front, as there are a number of relatively new courses right in my neck of the woods, and I frankly don't hear a lot of complaining from the locals about that. Someone must think that they'll still be able to make some money building them, despite restrictions and give-backs, for so much development to be taking place.

I couldn't be happier that a high-quality golf course development is happening in the open land near my house, and I am frankly amazed at the amount of land that is going to be open in between us. I have no idea if that land was set aside because the developer was forced to do it, or if it was set aside to create a buffer between the new high-end development and my less high-end neighhborhood. I would have liked it a lot less had a developer purchased it who wanted to stick thousands of beige McMansions on it, which would have been their right, if they had purchased it and their plans were approved by the local powers-that-be. My understanding is that at one time that was a likely proposition, but a different group bought the property.

One (somewhat off-topic) question - is there a different standard for golf course development than for other commercial or residential development? Earlier in this thread, Mr. Doak, you made a good point about the needs of the real estate portion of a new development often pushing the golf course into the marginal land that would be much more likely to be subject to environmental limitations. But that aside, is it easier or harder to get a golf course built than, say, a housing development, in terms of push-back from local government and the local populace? It seems obvious to me that a golf course would be better for the environment than a housing project, but is that a general perception? Is it true? I know that golf courses can help to sell houses, but does it also help to sell a community on a new development? Just curious......

I work in the IT field (to answer your question), and thus have limited knowledge of the ins and outs of building a golf course, or a development of any kind. I'm curious about it, though, and that's why I started asking questions. Didn't want to make you "give," Mr. Doak.  ;)

"After all, we're not communists."
                             -Don Barzini

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Conflicting interests - Golf, Architecture and Environmental issues
« Reply #42 on: September 29, 2006, 12:48:18 PM »
Paul T, et. al.,

The question remains, when a course makes concessions to environmental issues causing disconnects between green to tee, does that flaw become a fatal flaw ?

If they FAIL the "intimacy/ease of routing" and "walk in the park" tests, what's the highest ranking they could expect to obtain ?

Does the disconnect between the holes doom the golf course to mediocrity no matter how good the individual holes ?
« Last Edit: September 29, 2006, 12:48:52 PM by Patrick_Mucci »

paul cowley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Conflicting interests - Golf, Architecture and Environmental issues
« Reply #43 on: September 29, 2006, 02:10:04 PM »
Patrick ....every golf course built of late has to make concessions for environmental issues.....Asking "Mother may I?" is standard procedure, even if the answer is "No, you do not have to ask".
To be able to answer your question we would have to consider and measure the amount of disconnect, and at what point does a little become too much, or fatally flawed as you put it.....and to do so we have to consider specifics, not generalities IMO.

 
paul cowley...golf course architect/asgca

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Conflicting interests - Golf, Architecture and Environmental issues
« Reply #44 on: September 29, 2006, 07:16:19 PM »
Patrick ....every golf course built of late has to make concessions for environmental issues.....Asking "Mother may I?" is standard procedure, even if the answer is "No, you do not have to ask".
To be able to answer your question we would have to consider and measure the amount of disconnect, and at what point does a little become too much, or fatally flawed as you put it.....and to do so we have to consider specifics, not generalities IMO.

Paul,

I'd prefer not to define it, but, you know it when you see it.

Long walks from green to tee are obvious.

An occassional walk is tolerable, but, a pattern of long walks isn't, and therein lies the flaw.



PThomas

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Conflicting interests - Golf, Architecture and Environmental issues
« Reply #45 on: September 29, 2006, 07:29:28 PM »

Patrick:  if the site has so many long walks due to env restrictions than perhaps no course should be built there at all!
199 played, only Augusta National left to play!

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Conflicting interests - Golf, Architecture and Environmental issues
« Reply #46 on: September 29, 2006, 09:41:10 PM »

Patrick:  if the site has so many long walks due to env restrictions than perhaps no course should be built there at all!


That's usually a function of the demands of the market.

Is "A" golf course better than "NO" golf course ?

Courses with the disconnects tend to favor cart use rather than walking.  And as such, can courses lacking continuity ever aspire to high rankings, irrespective of the value of the individual holes ?

I would venture to say that NGLA could not be built in its present form, today.

What does that say about the future of golf course architecture ?

PThomas

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Conflicting interests - Golf, Architecture and Environmental issues
« Reply #47 on: September 29, 2006, 11:03:30 PM »

Patrick:  if the site has so many long walks due to env restrictions than perhaps no course should be built there at all!


That's usually a function of the demands of the market.

Is "A" golf course better than "NO" golf course ?

Courses with the disconnects tend to favor cart use rather than walking.  And as such, can courses lacking continuity ever aspire to high rankings, irrespective of the value of the individual holes ?

I would venture to say that NGLA could not be built in its present form, today.

What does that say about the future of golf course architecture ?


despite environmental protections, we are still seeing great new courses built Patrick...Pac Dunes, Sand Hills, Ballyneal, etc

many of today's architects are so good that they can deal quite successfully with any issues
199 played, only Augusta National left to play!

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Conflicting interests - Golf, Architecture and Environmental issues
« Reply #48 on: September 30, 2006, 09:12:46 AM »
Paul T,

That's 3 courses out of thousands in the last twenty or so years.

And, look where they are.

In remote areas.

And, with jurisdictional agencies that are aware of the economic benefits of development.

To site them as a typical example is disengenuous.

paul cowley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Conflicting interests - Golf, Architecture and Environmental issues
« Reply #49 on: September 30, 2006, 10:09:59 AM »
Patrick...I agree that the National could probably not be built today, along with probably 40 out of the top 50 of the true classic courses.....but I still think GCA is very alive and will stay very well.

We, Golf Designers and developers, have become smarter than in years past......and have learned how to adapt to survive.
I consul clients and design with AVOIDENCE [or minimal impacts] to wetlands as the prudent way to go....primarily for ease of permitting, lower costs to construct and playability [ enhancing ones enjoyment].....all vital to the overall success of a project.

A smart developer and planner factors in decreased yields and doesn't push the limits in a proforma.....and if it works the project moves ahead......but I have also advised pulling the plug on many a project before it got out of the conceptual planning stages.

You just cannot approach a piece of dirt expecting to apply the older methodology....and if you do, be prepared for a frustrating and more than likely a costly experience.
 
« Last Edit: October 04, 2006, 08:24:36 PM by paul cowley »
paul cowley...golf course architect/asgca