Real Routing Question

[Bill Brightly]

OK you amateurs (and pros.) I know a Civil Engineer working on a golf course project. He is not a member of CGA, so he asked me to post this question:

 Understanding the attached partial sketch shows very little detail and no topographic information. Some general background information:

 

Under the current layout the tee shot for the first hole is uphill, about 30 feet in elevation from tee to landing area.  The landing area is real nice and the slope is slightly uphill to the 1st green.  You play away from the 2nd tee, resulting in a long walk, about 1,300 feet between the 1st green and 2nd tee.  It is all regulated areas, long story.  After this, the distances between green and tee are reasonable, allowing the course to be walked.  In order to eliminate the long walk after you start your round, we have discussed starting on the 2nd hole.  Here are a few points that may not be obvious from the sketch.

 

1.       The distance from the club house to the second tee, alternate 1st tee, is about the same, 1,300 feet.  (These are the only existing routes through regulated wetlands.)

2.       We lose about 90 yards total with the alternate plan, which we could make up in other places.  We lose one par 4; lengthen the 3rd hole, which plays down hill through a bunch of ponds, making it a short par 5, which except for length it sort of wants to be.  We would have three 3’s, three 4’s and three 5’s on the front.

3.       Currently, we need to cut the 18th green about 8 feet to make the surface visible from the club house patio.  The alternate 18th would play along the current 1st, with the landing area in the same spot and the 30 foot drop to the green.  No real earthwork required and the green would be about 20 feet below the club house, which we would realign.

4.       There is a subdivision road that passes between the current 10th green and 11th tee, (9th and 10th alternate) which could be used to transport groups starting on 10, since there is not returning nines.  The course will be private.

 

Seems to be many pros and cons, which layout do you prefer?  

[Mike Nuzzo]

Is there an architect - or did the civil engineer design it?

I like the alternate plan much better.
getting the walk out of the way is big deal for me
less earthwork for 18 and finishing in front of the clubhouse like NGLA
short 17th like oakmont

[TEPaul]

Bill:

In my opinion, trying to answer those questions intelligently and constructively from this vantage point is nearly impossible.

This is why those making those kinds of decisons need to spend a lot of time on site. I think if those making those decisions don't do that, no matter how good they are, they just can't make decisions that're all that informed. It'll just be a roll of the dice.

[Matthew Hunt]

I agree with Mike that Idea 2 is better for the same reasons and I think a par 5 in front of the Clubhouse is a good way to end a round.

[Adrian_Stiff]

I would suggest you get an architect to design this properly. It is impossible to assess this in terms of what might make a better golf course, however you really need the 1st tee close to the clubhouse to make commercial sense. So Plan 2 would not seem an option.

[Bradley Anderson]

If the golf professional had a vote on this he would almost certainly prefer to have the first tee within view of the Pro-Shop for obvious reasons.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bill,

I hate to spend even a few minutes answering this question, because I get the idea that its just puttin lipstick on a pig....

There are some other problems, like the driving range slicing into housing and being too close to the parking lot when it appears (without topo) that the parking lot could be moved left.

I have been forced into similar long walks/rides before, as its the nature of the beast with permitting regs. It makes it a cart course for most.

I doubt the course manager would want to give up visual control of the first tee, and a remote first makes it pretty easy to sneak on the course.  The par 5 18th might save some green cut and fill, but I think you would use those savings up mounding the chipping area for safety, since there is apparently little to keep golfers on the 18th from getting home in two by shortcutting through the practice area.  Lastly, I don't like the walkback to 18 tee - coming off 17 green you will be right in the line of play of the shortcutters.

I don't know what your response was on the "start with a Par 3 thread" but a if you decided to do a short ride to 1, and were willing to start with a par 3, you could shorten the ride.  

The problem with such a question is the old routing adage of "Da knee bone connected to da thighbone......"

[Tom_Doak]

For starters, if you just shortened the first hole a bit and straightened it out, you would reduce the walk to #2 by 25%.  The only conceivable reason not to do so is stupidly trying to hit the magic 7,000-yard total.

My guess is the clubhouse is in the wrong place to start with, but it's impossible to tell based on this part of the map.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

Good suggestion. It actually looks like a 30% walk reduction to me. Alternate two is admittedly losing 90 yards anyway, so this is a wash. And, if they pushed the first fw closer to the wetlands, and perhaps moved or adjusted the putting green, you could probably move the first tee back to pick up some of that yardage.

The other wonder about this is why the developer left that skinny parcel around the clubhouse rather than picking it up.

Lastly, the responses here are good indicators of what I have always found in routing - its a matter of keeping an open mind and constantly tweaking to solve all the problems.  Typically, that kind of thought process in not in the realm or strength of engineering, which is a more point A to B kind of field.

As Brad Klien once wrote - "Routing is Destiny."  A bad one locks you into operations problems forever, esp. in a housing development where re-routing during a remodel is usually impossible.

[Art Roselle]

I would think that a remote first tee would be OK if it really helps the routing on other fronts.  I don't want to hijack this discussion too much, but what courses do have a remote first tee location?  Is it that big a problem?  I know it is not ideal, but I have seen this at some very good courses and there are also certainly some more where the tee is not far from the clubhouse, but is in an awkward spot relative to the pro shop.  Resorts and clubs with multiple courses end up with this problem all the time and often put a starter shack near the 1st tee.  Even with only one course, you see it a lot in the mountains or marshy coastal areas, where it is tough to find a suitable site big enough for a clubhouse, parking, 1st tee and 18th green (not to mention 10th tee and 9th green).  Usually, it seems like the 1st tee is made remote rather than the 18th green.  The ones I can think of where there is a single course and yet a  remote 1st tee are
True Blue
Wade Hampton
Grandfather
Cullasaja
Highland Cove
Mountain Top
Capital City - Crabapple (not too far, but certainly out of sight from the clubhouse.  Interestingly, the 18th green is out of view too)
Kiawah Ocean
Heritage (Pawleys Island, SC)
Valhalla (again, not too far and it may be in view of the shop, I am not sure)

I am sure there are many many more.   I am curious in part because Charlotte Country Club is about to build a new pro shop which will be near the practice tee and 18th green, but on the far side of the clubhouse from the 1st tee.  I am not sure how big a logistical problem  this will cause.

[Matt_Cohn]

The 17th hole in the alternate plan looks awkward. Do you get the sense that it would be awkward in person? Both in terms of routing and the practice-area backdrop.

[paul cowley]

Bill....and while you're at it, I'd pipe the water crossing the fairway landing area on the current hole #3, especially as its a 470 yd par four. That location is hell on short hitters and higher handicaps, but of little concern for the better player.

If you do, please send me $60 for the suggestion....times are toughening up you know.

[Norbert P]

I'm not sure what the boundary lines represent, but, in option #1, if grade allows, like Tom says, straighten and shorten #1 and then build island tees for a par 5 #2.  If there's a cart path there, especially in the zig zag portion, perhaps there is room for tee grounds?  

[Jeff Doerr]

Put me down for the alternate plan.

What's going on with holes 9 and 10? Do they join way out of the picture?

The other option to me is to shorten 1 in the first version, taking the green towards the jog in the path near that earlier point.

[Jason McNamara]

Bill,

How does #5 wind up looking in the alternate plan?  Does it mesh well, or is it an obvious "hey, let's smush a short par 3 in here to make up the numbers" kind of hole?

Jason

[Lester George]

Bill,

Get your engineer friend to engage a professional Golf Course Architect or one will have to come in the future to correct his correction.

Lester

[Forrest Richardson]

Even an unprofessional golf course architect may be helpful.  

[Peter Nomm]

I think with either setup there will be the need for a full-time starter.  With the original, the landing area will be blind (am I correct?).  Better have someone there making sure all is clear, because we all know how anxious we are to begin!  And with the alternate plan, the distance from the clubhouse would necessitate one.

I like the finish of the alternate, and if the landing area of original #1 is, in fact, not visible, then I really favor the alternate.  

To bad they are in the situation to begin with.

[Steve_Lovett]

The initial problem starts with the clubhouse site plan - before you ever arrive to the first tee...  Could the parking lot be any uglier? And you have to cross incoming traffic to get from the bag drop/clubhouse to your parking space?  Not so good...

[Bill Brightly]

Repsonses from the CE. (He is working on the project but is not the architect. He is a fan of GCA, and thought it might be interesting to post their routing question.)

Reply 6, 7 and 12, Jeff, Tom and Slag – Suggest a shorter 1st hole.  Originally the 1st was 350, with the green in a different location.  However, we can not get a permit for a new wetland crossing, so we are stuck with using the existing roads.  The green was moved to the location of the road.

(The red line cannot be crossed, except via the options show in the two routing plans, which are old logging roads.)

Reply 7, Tom – I agree with Tom on not being tied to the magic number, some are, so that is why it was mentioned.  The course could easily be stretched to 7,200 if they wanted to.  The real question is how do you feel about the new front nine routing with three par 3’s, three par 4’s and three par 5’s?

Others – If the 1st is deleted, all the remaining holes are unchanged, except the numbering and whether the third hole changes from a par 4 to a par 5. The lost hole is added back as the short 17, (which has not been designed) since with the new numbering, there would only be one par 3 on the back.

 

The debate is whether or not to give up a clear view of the 1st tee in exchange for “getting the walk out of the way early,” (walkers could be shuttled to the new 1st); expanded practice area; and arguably a stronger finishing hole, (18 remains a par 4).  Not to mention the fact that being able to walk the course is critical and possibly unlikely for many with the distance between 1 and 2 that we have to live with.  One other thought.  You start strong, go 1 up, and then have a 5 minute walk to the next tee….

 

[Norbert P]

 In Option 2 . . . How about puttting the 1st tees at #2 Green and approach area, shorten the hole, place a par 3 where#1 is, come back toward 3 with a par 4, maybe take out the little lake (who'd miss it but the ducks?), then up 4 ? I can't see what's outside of 4, is there any room to spare there?

[Norbert P]

 Oh yeah, and place a turret gun assembly from a B29 bomber  on the roof of the Pro Shop. That should keep anybody from sneaking on.

[paul cowley]

Bill....I guess my 60 bucks is out of the question.

[Bruce Katona]

Given the existing site conditions of road frontage, wetlands and routing and given my 2 cents I would look at where you are entering and exiting the site with vehicles, parking and the location of the clubhouse before you re-consider the golf corridor routing....most times these existing site constraints tell you where the corridors should be located.

[Michael Powers]

I like the alternate plan much better.  It's not even close as far as logistics and golf operation.  With the walk or ride being to the first tee, you could use a shuttle service if you wanted to when it's busy.  This would be awkward at best if used between 1 green and 2 tee.