Why aren't there more holes with

[Patrick_Mucci]

dual greens ?

They seem to work well at a number of courses.

Pine Valley would seem to head the list.

Why don't we see more of them ?

Is there absence a function of excessive cost or the lack of creativity, or both ?

[Mark Smolens]

Fear of lawyers and frivolous litigation?

[John Moore II]

Pat-please help me with the idea of dual greens. Are you talking about the double green type seen at The Old Course, or are you talking about two unique greens for the same hole seperated by a fair bit of yardage?

[Kalen Braley]

From what I understand and seen in aerials, this is not uncommon with Japanese courses.  And this would be a case where the entire course has dual greens, not just a few holes as at Pine Valley.

I would guess cost is the biggest factor against this.  If one green will suffice in terms of being able to hold up year round, I'm not sure why one would want to have dual greens.

[J_ Crisham]

Cost in addition to labor intensive mowing must be a factor. Also some golfers prefer the solitude of being alone on "their" green.

[Joe Hancock]

Pat,

Have you played a lot of courses that had singular greens so poorly designed that you wished there was another green, just as poorly designed?

One well designed green per hole is a good, frugal way to present a golf course.

Joe

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Have you played a lot of courses that had singular greens so poorly designed that you wished there was another green, just as poorly designed?

Joe,

Just when I was making progress with TEPaul, you step in.

It's not so much about the putting surface, it's about the angles into the dual greens and their surrounds.[/color]

One well designed green per hole is a good, frugal way to present a golf course.

Would you say that the four greens on the 8th and 9th holes at Pine Valley are:
1 superior,
2 mediocre
3 poor ?

Would you say they add interest and a different challenge ?[/color]

Johnny M,

Two seperate, distinct greens.

Although, on another thread we could discuss dual/common greens.

[John Moore II]

Pat-Thanks, now I can discuss. I think dual greens really add to the shot making potential of a hole. There is a course in Durham, NC that has three dual greens. Hillandale. All the times I have played it, the pins have been on the same greens though. But I think they are very good ideas. Little River here in Pinehurst has at least one dual green. One green plays almost level off the tee, while the other plays substantially downhill and longer. For the average public course though I would think the cost issue is why you do not see more of them. In the case of Pine Valley, where money is no object, they work great. I certainly would like to see more of them

[Evan_Smith]

North Park in Pittsburgh has 2 holes with dual greens.  Both the 2nd and 4th holes (par 3's) have 2 greens each.  The angles and distances are a little different, but it doesn't change the characteristic of the hole very much.

South Park, also in Pittsburgh, has another par 3 with dual greens.  The 8th has a green that plays about 135 and then another up the hill that plays over 200.  From what I'm told, the back green doesn't get used very much.

[Patrick_Mucci]

With respect to the cost issue, if a green cost about $ 5-$10 a square foot and a green was 5,000 square feet, is $ 25,000 or $ 50,000 a substantive add on to a 3, 4 or 5 million dollar project ?

[John Moore II]

On the front side of a project like that, no its not a very large investment. However, $40000 is the average number I have been told on what it takes to maintain a green for 1 year. In that case, even at a budget of $1,000,000 per year(with 18 greens), that amount would raise the budget 4% per green. That becomes a large investment for a green that is used no more than 50% of the time. Not to mention the extra costs that are associated with moving the surrounds of the green and maintaining the bunkers. So I'll throw out a 7% total budget increase for each dual green complex. That money has to come from somewhere, dues, daily fees, or profit.

[Patrick_Mucci]

On the front side of a project like that, no its not a very large investment. However, $40000 is the average number I have been told on what it takes to maintain a green for 1 year.


Johnny M,

I think that figure represents the green budget divided by 18, not the cost to maintain a single green.[/color]

In that case, even at a budget of $1,000,000 per year(with 18 greens), that amount would raise the budget 4% per green. That becomes a large investment for a green that is used no more than 50% of the time. Not to mention the extra costs that are associated with moving the surrounds of the green and maintaining the bunkers. So I'll throw out a 7% total budget increase for each dual green complex. That money has to come from somewhere, dues, daily fees, or profit.

I believe the numbers you use to formulate your premise are way off, hence, your conclusion would be way off.

Being slightly familiar with the workings of green budgets at a number of clubs, the add on in maintainance costs for an additional green isn't that big of a factor.

So, I go back to my original question, why don't we see more of these features ?

It was my understanding that, originally, Trump's course in Bedminster had a hole with a dual green setup designed by Fazio.  Perhaps someone familiar with the course can comment.[/color]

[John Moore II]

Pat--To answer the original question, which I have tried to do, to build a second green on a hole may be PERCEIVED as too costly by the developer. To go with that, if the course is to be part of a real estate development, the cost of the land necessary to put the secondary green on would add to the cost of the project, well, not really add to the cost, but take money away from the bottom line when the housing starts.
--Please tell me how my calculations are off, I can write out a long formula to get to the same place if you like

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat--To answer the original question, which I have tried to do, to build a second green on a hole may be PERCEIVED as too costly by the developer.

I think the architect could pursuade the developer on the merits of a second green, factoring in the costs.[/color]

To go with that, if the course is to be part of a real estate development, the cost of the land necessary to put the secondary green on would add to the cost of the project, well, not really add to the cost, but take money away from the bottom line when the housing starts.

I'd agree that a Real Estate project might not be the ideal candidate[/color]

--Please tell me how my calculations are off, I can write out a long formula to get to the same place if you like


When you look at the fixed costs associated with green budgets, and you then factor in the variable costs associated with maintaining an additional green, the overall incremental cost isn't substantive. [/color]

[Michael Moore]

Why don't we see more of them ?

Because people like to compare scorecards and golfing accomplishments without worrying about who played to which green.

[John Moore II]

Pat-I agree that a top notch architect could possibly persuade a developer to build a second green on one or even a few holes, especially if the club was private. I must admit that I look at most things from the business model of a public course, I have never worked at or been a member of a private. In that respect, cost becomes a bigger factor than it does at private clubs, I think. In that way, I would say that cost, either Perceived or Real, is the main reason why dual greens are not seen.

[Tony Ristola]

A second green is usually small, and can be justified as a sod garden. Especially for courses built in harsh (cold-short season) climates.

[Ray Richard]

The two green scenario is used on upscale courses in Japan because of the different characteristics of cool season bent grasses and warm weather bermuda. The primary (bent grass) green is played during the winter months, and the alternate warm weather green is played during the hot and humid summer. It's a nice option if you can afford it.

[TEPaul]

"Pine Valley would seem to head the list."

Pat:

Since you used Pine Valley as an example do you have any idea why they have two greens on those two holes?

[Adrian_Stiff]

I really like the idea of having an A and a B green in certain situations. If you have a very small green say sub 4000sq ft then it make sense in an operational way. The tiny green could work from a design/ strategy situation, but it needs some rest.
The only slight problem I see is that the customer sees one green as the prime green and one as secondary (inferior). I guess good design could eradicate that.
At Troon, the 8th has two greens but we talk very little bout the B green. If I was paying $400 to play Troon and play to the B green id be kinda zigged. It's not a bad hole but how much of that $400 is for the postage stamp, I think it might be a good half!

[Joe Hancock]

Pat,

I haven't been to Pine Valley so I can't comment on their greens.

As far as different angles are concerned, doesn't a well designed green coupled with a fairway of adequate width provide a reasonable number of angle and approach options?

I'll try to be less like TEPaul in the future. He requires no sidekick!

Joe

[JohnH]

I agree with Joe.  Why does a second green need to be built in order to be creative?  Can there be no creativity with a single green complex?

Cascades (Bendelow) in Jackson, Mi, has a double green on the par 3 11th.  I have no idea if it was intended by Bendelow (which I highly doubt) due to the dual greens flat, smallish, uninteresting features.  It is 175-195 for the men with a large pond down the right side.  Instead of a woman's tee shorter and to the left, they built a second green to the left of the original basically taking the water out of play.  I have played the course a hundred times and have never hit to the second green, and upon reasoning from the pro shop, use the second green for the women only.  I only use this example to show that in at least one case, a second green is used to seemingly appease higher handicap players and to speed up play, not necessarily to add creativity.

[RJ_Daley]

For an interesting look at 9 holes all with dual greens, check out this link:

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=44.556687~-88.146111&style=a&lvl=16&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=15723544&encType=1

You can toy with the view and do a flyover, birdseye 3D.  

It is a very sporty little 9 hole loop, good fun.  Designed by Rick Jacobsen of Libertyville Ill.  The original 9 holes was built on the only sand mine in the area.  Because they couldn't assemble enough land for 18 holes, they tried this dual green multi tee concept with the idea in mind that you could go around twice and play somewhat different holes with the mixing of different tees to the other green.  I like it as a novelty.  Later, the project went to the big R.E. project and 18 more holes.  The financials on it are now a disaster...

[Jimmy Muratt]

The new Lester George course, Ballyhack, being built in Roanoke, VA will have a dual green.  The course is set to open in 2009.

[Kirk Gill]

There is, of course, the 18th hole at Jim Engh's new course at the Reynolds Plantation with three greens. Apparently all three greensites were good, and worthy, and so they all were built.

But the easiest answer to the essential question on this thread "why aren't more of them built" is that golf holes traditionally have one green. There are exceptions, and they're all notable. Golf is a game that tends to cloak itself in tradition. Ergo...

There would have to be either a desire to break with tradition, little interest in complying with tradition, or a more practical, need-based reason. I'm sure that all the golden age architects were able to process the notion that additional greens would provide additional strategic interest, etc., but it's not something that they typically chose to do.