[Justin_Zook]

I'm not talking about putting greens, or the color of the grass per se.

I'm talking about designing golf courses with the environment in mind.  I'd like to know why traditional architects aren't more vocal about the environmental benefits of not moving around enormous amounts of soil?  Not only does it use a huge amount of fuel, it disrupts the natural terrain of the land.  

Now, I'd like to think that I'm pragmatic.  I am not taking this to extremes here.  Soil must be moved in order that the course functions correctly in terms of infrastructure and playability.

But with Americans becoming more "European" and more "Socially Aware", why not play off this?  Why not create "LEED" standards for environmentally conscious golf course design?  These courses would be easy to maintain, and would use less land, or use land that cannot be used well for other purposes.  The standard could even mention something about the number of sprinkler heads the course should have given it's proposed yardage/total acreage as a way to moderate water consumption.

I think it's a great idea, so long as it would be used to motivate, not discourage.  

The new golf course architecture "LEED" standard would only address the building and maintaining of golf courses.  Maybe courses that certify would be given tax breaks for living in harmony with the environment.  

What are your thoughts?  What do the architects on here think?

[Michael Dugger]

The architects will tell you it is going to amount to even more bureaucracy yet so it must be a bad idea!

Have you looked into Audubon's Sanctuary program, Justin?

There has been A LOT of discussion around here over the years about the environment and how it pertains to golf.

Some good.....some bad.  Discussion that is.

There are some who think the Audubon Societies' program is a joke.

[Pat Brockwell]

The market will speak, but only in response to the big risk you (and the lenders) take.  The risk our lenders were willing to take helped us move less soil and be minimal. It has worked out well, form follows finance and we have developed an outstanding track at Black Mesa IMHO.  Alot of being "green" is about being frugal.  Extravagant development leaves a bigger carbon footprint and costs more to boot.  Eddie Peck and I set out with the idea that the golf came first, and key decisions were based on that concept.  I see lots of places where the concept is the image comes first, and the image will attract money and the money will justify the effort, and the golf is just the vehicle.  My message to GC developers is love the golf and be ready to ruin your short game.

[Justin_Zook]

Yeah, my experience from a maintenance standpoint is that the Audubon Sanctuary Programs are fine and good, but they truly are not on the top of a superintendent's priority list.  

The new LEED standard would really be the marketing mechanism to get the issues [that the traditionalists are about] in the forefronts of the people minds who are commissioning the project.

It would be a way of creating distinction from the excess and gaud that pervades much of the golf architecture today.

I care about the environment, but the environmental emphasis would approach would appeal to the emotional side of things.  There is real costs savings to building a golf course that is more natural looking, uses less water, is smaller, and is sensible.

To me, this creates sustainability, and that is what LEED, from a Building point of view, is supposed to be all about.

[Doug Siebert]

I think its a great idea in theory, but it would be hard to satisfy people with more extreme viewpoints who would probably believe that all golf courses are an affront to the environment.  Even if everyone is well intentioned and extreme viewpoints on both sides were eliminated from the discussion it comes down to how the rules are implemented and whether they have unintended consequences.

The 2007 Residential LEED standards are IMHO a bit too slanted away from encouraging green materials and construction practices and too far towards telling builders WHAT to build.  To wit, if you build a house over a certain square footage (I can't remember what, maybe 3000 sq ft) its essentially impossible to receive the highest LEED Platinum rating.  I'd prefer that they don't try to limit the size but only the environmental impact of the construction materials and post-construction heating/cooling/lighting needs.  If someone finds a way to build a 12,000 sq ft house that takes less energy input for the materials, construction, and ongoing needs than a well built 2000 sq ft house does today, it should be encouraged and not penalized by assuming that all large structures must be inefficient.

The rules could be written in a way that most GCAers would find beneficial towards encouraging the types of courses we want to see more of.  For instance, if they specified a certain amount of irrigation (presumably based on the climate where the course is built to some extent) then F&F conditions would be more likely!  However, if the rules were written to instead specify a maximum square footage of irrigated ground, we'd see narrow island fairways.  Which would probably still be emerald green and soggy

[Jim Nugent]

If the program is truly entirely voluntary, no problem.  The moment you start giving tax breaks, though, "voluntary" gets thrown out the window.  

I strongly oppose any tax breaks for this kind of program.  

[Peter Zarlengo]

I would like to add that The Glacier Club, in Colorado, just recieved a General Design Award from the American Society of Landscape Architects.  Mainly for its use of stormwater management and green practices.

http://www.asla.org/awards/2007/07winners/358_dw.html

A pretty big 'get' for the golf community, considering what most in that landscape architecture world feel about golf's impact on the environment.

[Justin_Zook]

Jim,
Point taken on tax breaks.  I'm not sure I disagree.  

Peter,
I just read the Special Factors portion of the article.  I love that.  That is what I am talking about.

I think if the industry proactively becomes "green" in every way, it could revolutionize the industry.  At some point, the Tiger effect will be gone.  And what are we going to be left with?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()