[Voytek Wilczak]

Many of the great new courses are secluded; some more than others.

Sand Hills, Sebonack, Cape Kidnappers come to mind as secluded ones.

From the older courses, PV certainly has a strong feeling of seclusion; a world unto itself once you cross those railroad tracks.

Yet some other grand old courses like TOC or North Berwick function well literally within small towns.

Is seclusion prized by architects in the site selection process?

And if it is not available on an otherwise good site, do they strive to create "an illusion of seclusion"?

[Jason McNamara]

And if it is not available on an otherwise good site, do they strive to create "an illusion of seclusion"?

Haven't been there, but how about Shadow Creek as an example?

[Joe Hancock]

Voytek,

I think of seclusion more in terms of preferences and business models rather than a design influence.

Some, if not most of the worlds greatest courses are not secluded.

So, if there is value in seclusion to an architect, i would say it's a personal preference.

Joe

[Tom_Doak]

Voytek:

You don't necessarily want seclusion, but you do want to minimize distractions.

[BCrosby]

Virtually every course I am familiar with undertook massive tree planting programs in the 50's and 60's. Most of them were called "beautification" programs or something like that. An additional goal was to create the sense that each hole was it's own separate little universe.

All of those ideas remain popular. Especially with older members.

At our club we are trying to remove a lot of vegetation. The questions we get most often come from members who remember the time when planting lots of tree was supposed to be a good thing. There are concerns that the course will be less attractive and that secluded areas will be lost.

There has clearly been change in attitude about removing trees and opening up things. But it is relatively new. I think it is a good thing, overall.

Most clubs are doing a complete and sudden U turn on the issue.  What made sense in terms of course vegetation just 10 years ago or so is now suddenly not the thing. So people are scratching their heads.

Bob

[jim_lewis]

Tom:

In your experience, how often do architects get to choose the site?  I have heard of a few cases, mostly involving Ross, but it seems to me that in most modern cases, expecially residential and resort, the owner selects the site and then hires the architect. I'm sure some architects decide whether to take a job based on the site, but I wonder how often they get to change the site.

JIm Lewis

[Tom_Doak]

Jim:

It's pretty rare that we actually have different sites to look at.

I've had a handful of chances to pick my spot out of 5000 acres within the one property, though, which is almost the same thing.

[Joe Hancock]

Jim:

It's pretty rare that we actually have different sites to look at.

I've had a handful of chances to pick my spot out of 5000 acres within the one property, though, which is almost the same thing.

...and when you have your choice amongst 5000 acres, seclusion isn't the issue.....

 

[Dan Herrmann]

Seclusion is a very interesting factor.  My club has a par 3 that runs parallel to the Pennsylvania Turnpike.  There are some berms, but you know it's there.

I don't even notice it anymore, but guests certainly do.

On the other hand, we have some holes that are very secluded.

Honestly, after playing the course as much as I have, I don't even notice the seclusion factor.

Is this true for others too?

[Ken Moum]

Honestly, after playing the course as much as I have, I don't even notice the seclusion factor.

Is this true for others too?

My home course is surrounded by neighborhoods (not particularly "nice" ones) and is exposed to city streets on several holes. There's never a point where you are secluded from the neighborhood or from golfers on other holes.

Having played courses like that for about 50 years, I was once intrigued by the Sandhills idea that you couldn't see any other holes.

But two weeks in Scotland cured me of that thinking.

I loved the collegial feel of the courses at St. Andrews, Brora, Dornoch, Lundin Links and Nairn.

After that, I decided that "secluded" courses are overrated

Ken

[Doug Siebert]

BCrosby,

I think part of it may not be the idea of seclusion so much as the sudden shock to the drastic change in the look of a course.

Weren't some of those tree plantings a reaction to Dutch Elm disease killing off a lot of really great old trees?  I am just old enough to have seen my home course just before Dutch Elm struck here in the late 70s.  I remember how barren the course looked by comparison, even though there were a fair number of other trees -- it is just that the elms dominated and many were situated near tees and greens making their loss more noticeable than if they were all 20-30 yards off the fairway.  I am sure many people though the same as I and thus to fix the "barren" look tbe idea of planting new trees was a natural reaction.

Unfortunately the tree plantings took on a life of their own and have continued and continued to where there is hardly a place you can miss the fairway and not find tree trouble, and some areas are under nearly permanent shade and thus have little in the way of grass.  There is not a single hole on the course where any drive between 150-300 yards will not have to deal with trees if it is more than about 8 yards off the fairway on either side.  There are some locations were a drive in the fairway has to negotiate overhanging trees.

I think that a lot of the negative reaction some might have to tree removals is just because of the shock in the sudden change to the look of a hole or a course.  New trees take decades to mature so the process is so slow you don't really notice it year to year.  If they planted them fully grown like they do at PB there would be the same shock when they are added, and tree plantings might cause just as much dissatisfaction among some as the tree removals do.  This course is a poster child for tree removal but I am sure it would be difficult to make happen because the course will look completely different, and everyone gets to read in their own negative connotations (the course will be too easy, there will be no penalty for a wild drive/no reward for keeping it in the fairway, it will make the rough grow too thick...)

[Rich Goodale]

To me, the ideal golf courses are those which can combine a sense of intimacy with intermittent "distractions."  Thsoe which are designed for splendid isolation and a complete separation of holes may be pleasing architecturally but fail to inspire at the human level.  Those which are overly burdened with distractions are poorly deisgned or just unlucky in terms of the land availabe for construction.

[Dan Kelly]

To me, the ideal golf courses are those which can combine a sense of intimacy with intermittent "distractions."  Thsoe which are designed for splendid isolation and a complete separation of holes may be pleasing architecturally but fail to inspire at the human level.  Those which are overly burdened with distractions are poorly deisgned or just unlucky in terms of the land availabe for construction.

Examples -- particularly of those splendidly isolated courses that are "pleasing architecturally but fail to inspire at the human level" (whatever you mean by that)?

As for me: I find that such courses (viz., Sutton Bay, Sand Hills) inspire me at every level -- particularly if th distractions are mostly Large Rodents.

[Rich Goodale]

Hi Dan

How about an abstract example first? (boy, that phrase REALLY!!! REALLY!!! deserves a smiley face, but I shall show restraint........).

The courses I am talking about which may be great, but fail to inspire, are like art galleries where you move from Vermeer to Picasso to Velasquez to Monet, stopping to admire each work, but having no sense as to how they relate to each other, other than they are great paintings.  Other courses give you the opposite by having an obvious and interesting interrealationship between holes (routing), but not enough architectural attraction at each indivdual hole to make the whole splendid.  The best have both a collection of great holes and a sense of a higher holistic relationship between the holes.

I can think of examples for each, but if I spout them out I might get into trouble.....

Rich

[BCrosby]

Doug -

In my part of the country (SE) most of the tree planting programs in the 50's involved planting trees de novo.

An interesting story: Our course had the Fazio group do some course revisions in the mid '90's.  A lot of new, smaller trees, shrubs and other landscaping were planted around tees and greens. People who coordinated things with Fazio's group tell me that the idea was to provide for more seclusion. Create a sense of intimacy, etc.

Now, 10 or 12 years later the same design group is recommending the removal of much of that stuff. There is little value being placed on seclusion. The buzz words now are vistas, less shading, improved turf, balls have the right of way, open up views of the rest of the course, etc.

I happen to agree with the new take on these issues. But there has clearly been a major and very recent sea change in attitudes about the value of seclusion.

Some of our members are having a hard time keeping up.

Bob   

[Ed Oden]

The courses I am talking about which may be great, but fail to inspire, are like art galleries where you move from Vermeer to Picasso to Velasquez to Monet, stopping to admire each work, but having no sense as to how they relate to each other, other than they are great paintings.  Other courses give you the opposite by having an obvious and interesting interrealationship between holes (routing), but not enough architectural attraction at each indivdual hole to make the whole splendid.  The best have both a collection of great holes and a sense of a higher holistic relationship between the holes.

Rich, I posted the following a couple of days ago on the Plainfield thread:

I'm interested in what you guys think distinguishes Plainfield.  For me its that Plainfield melds the seemingly competing interests of individuality and commonality as well as any course that I have played.  No two individual holes are even remotely alike.  Yet they are all connected by a common feel such that the variety of the individual holes blend together perfectly as a cohesive whole.  Some might argue that 13 and 14 are aberations.  While I can understand that view, I do not agree.  To my eye, Plainfield's brilliance is in both the forest and the trees.  What do others think?

Are we speaking the same language?

Ed

[Rich Goodale]

Ed

We were obvoiusly separated at birth.....

Rich

[Doug Ralston]

I, whom we all here agree knows nothing of golf, have developed in terms of the feelings about being on golf courses. I am not certain my feeling about seclusion were completely clear till we played a course in S MI called 'The Majestic.

It is a pretty nice design set among 1500 acres of mostly environmentally protected 'parkland' at Walden Lake. During the round we virtually never saw another golfer or another hole. Instead we saw only what we played and the extreme lushness of nature around us. And do you know what happened to my game? I actually played better. I felt more relaxed, more smooth and at ease.

I began noticing that trend at other isolated courses. It seems that, FOR ME, getting away from 'the madding crowd' was more important than the golf, the competiton, the interaction with people, the hurrah of socialization. It still is. I work a tough little job which I love, but my golf is for renewal. I suspect lots of average golfers feel that, though the majority still see it as a human game, and like muni golf just fine.

One vote for seclusion.

Doug

[tlavin]

Seclusion can be a great asset to a golf course.  The feeling of being off on your own in nature is relaxing and exhilarating at the same time.  I can tell you that I have never been as relaxed and excited as I was when I played Sand Hills.  I have a similar feeling when I play the Dunes Club in Michigan.  The feeling of peace, quiet and serenity is terrific.

Having said that, I am also a member at a busy and noisy golf club here in Chicago.  You never forget where you are at Beverly Country Club.  From the omnipresent planes, trains and ambulances to the cacophonous boom of the sound systems from the neighboring forest preserves, you always know that you are in a crowded urban area.  When the golf course was first built, it was decidedly rural and the peace and quiet vibe must have been part of the allure.  Now, the allure is that you can be on such a great and demanding golf course right in the middle of humanity.

If given their preference, I am sure that most owners and architects would prefer to maximize the seclusion and minimize the distractions, as Doak said in an earlier post, but the magic of golf is that you can really enjoy the game in peaceful or challenging environments.

[Ed Oden]

Ed

We were obvoiusly separated at birth.....

Rich

You started a trend.  People have been running from me ever since!

[Kalen Braley]

The Nicklaus course at Promontory is about as secluded a golf course I've ever played and it was fantastic.  No houses, yet, no cars, no people, just us and the course. As we kept quiet for everyones turn over the golf ball it was amazing to literally hear nothing, except for the occasional bird.

I could really get used to the whole seculsion thing!!!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()