[JMEvensky]

We're getting ready to write one with the aid of an architect.Most of the reasons are maintenance/repair/renovate based rather than a desire to remodel.For those who've been involved in them:

Anything you've seen put in that you wish hadn't been?

Anything omitted that shouldn't have been?

Any stupid mistakes we should avoid?

Thanks for any input.

[Ian Larson]

Dont skimp on the tree trimming if the situation calls for it. Thats the perfect time to rectify any agromomical issues due to shade.

[Ronald Montesano]

Without knowing the property, the complaints, etc., we're flying blind.  How old is drainage (is there drainage?), are there any nut jobs with influence on the committees that make decisions that might bring about something crazy?  Are you looking to go backward or move forward?

[JMEvensky]

Without knowing the property, the complaints, etc., we're flying blind.  How old is drainage (is there drainage?), are there any nut jobs with influence on the committees that make decisions that might bring about something crazy?  Are you looking to go backward or move forward?

I'm the only nut job.However,part of the reasoning for a Master Plan is to ensure that some other nut job down the road doesn't do something regrettable.Something to protect us from ourselves.

The background is that we wanted to A) build a short-game practice area, B) enlarge the practice tee at the range,and C) repair some bunkers(edges and drainage).

We realized that,if we were going to do this much,maybe it might make sense to actually get a qualified guy to make other suggestions and wrap it all into a 5-10 year Master Plan.

As to non-bunker drainage,there are a couple of issues which we know about and know how to resolve.

As a "Muccian",member complaints are irrelevant and unrecognized.

As regards tree trimming/removal-not to worry.That Kool Aid was swallowed long ago.

[Forrest Richardson]

Ideally the master plan transcends the physical course to include finances, phasing (interruption), pace-of-play and even a reposition of the club's marketing and image.

The master plan that merely deals with what to do with bunkers or irrigation is one that will hang on the wall and may never be implemented — or worse, will have a domino effect that is not well thought out.

Begin with goals and objectives. End with something that truly makes the course a more valuable asset.

[Craig Disher]

Let the architect hear input from the members but keep their influence to a minimum - but from what you say it sounds like that won't be a problem. Have as many open meetings with the membership and the architect that you can afford. Membership support for the plan is critical. Unless you're keeping the architect on a long-term retainer, once he's submitted the plan it's open to be sliced and diced by future greens committees.

One feature I've seen in some master plans is a set of before and after pictures that depict the major changes - the "after" resulting from clever photoshopping of the "before". It's effective and makes the goals very clear to the members.

[JMEvensky]

Forrest,thanks for some very good perspective.As it turns out,we've probably stumbled into your idea.We have some "clubhouse" things and some "golf course" things which we plan to roll into one package for the membership.

Craig,the before/after photo idea is very helpful.Any idea how to prevent the slicing/dicing in the future?

[Don_Mahaffey]

From a maintenance perspective, try your best to develop a comprehensive agronomic plan that clearly defines course conditioning expectations. The more detailed the better. If you can clearly communicate your expectations to your superintendent it makes it much easier to develop and manage the processes required to meet your goals, and much easier to develop budgets to fund the work. Its hard to hit a moving target, but clearly define your conditioning expectations and a good super will take it from there.

[Ian Andrew]

The most common miss in a Master Plan is not dealing with the technical problems of the property - ie. sunlight, drainage, irrigation etc.

It's so easy to look at architecture when the majority of problems are usually the less interesting things about golf courses.

[Dean Paolucci]

Jim,

Is this a candidate for a restoration or a remodel?  If it is a restoration create a representative committee and let them walk the course with the GCA and set the existing conditions report to writing.  Once you have existing conditions let the GCA prepare recommendations.  The committee can massage the recomendations and present to the board the suggested plan.  The board needs to endorse the plan and roll it out to the membership through town meetings.  Modify and re-present the amended plan through another town meeting.  The board should vote the master plan into the by-laws with the full set of recommendation even though some may be tabled to get passage on the project.  It is helpful to get a rendering of the course to allow constituients to visualize the plan.  Allow plenty of contingency monies as well as a committment to increase the green budget to maintain the new turf.  Include in the budget any new equipment that needs to be purchased for the project.

[Jon Wiggett]

We're getting ready to write one with the aid of an architect.Most of the reasons are maintenance/repair/renovate based rather than a desire to remodel.For those who've been involved in them:

Anything you've seen put in that you wish hadn't been?

Anything omitted that shouldn't have been?

Any stupid mistakes we should avoid?

Thanks for any input.

Beware of putting to much weight on the maintenance issues. My experience (and I have written several such concepts for different courses) is that interest of play/GCA issues should be the over riding concern. Where this has not being the case it has led to a dumbing down of the course and to a reduction in the playing interest. The easiest course to maintain looks like a football field.

I have to go now, work calls but will post some ideas later.

[JMEvensky]

Thanks to everyone who's chimed in.I think we'll be OK on the "golf course" issues given the input we have gotten/will continue to get from our Super,Pro,GCA,and members.

My worry is the putz 5 years down the road who thinks he's Tillinghast reincarnate(I've already claimed that for myself).That's why we'd like to make this as inflexible as possible,absent some real unforseen problems which may cause some deviations from the script.

Seems like this is the tightrope I'm trying to walk.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Hire a younger architect....   

[Ken Moum]

I have a question re. future departures from the plan.

Has anyone signed a long-term retainer with an architect to ensure that any changes to the plan or deviations from it are carefully considered?

For instance, once the club is confident in their choice, and happy with the Master plan, would it make sense to sign the architect up for a brief, annual visit to look at the course and talk to the board, green committee and members about the course and master plan.

I ask because at my club there's a lovely map drawn over an aerial photo by Craig Schreiner hanging in our card room, and as far as I can tell nothing on it has been done. I have a copy of Craig's Master Plan, and it's fine document, but .......

K

[JMEvensky]

I have a question re. future departures from the plan.

Has anyone signed a long-term retainer with an architect to ensure that any changes to the plan or deviations from it are carefully considered?

For instance, once the club is confident in their choice, and happy with the Master plan, would it make sense to sign the architect up for a brief, annual visit to look at the course and talk to the board, green committee and members about the course and master plan.

I ask because at my club there's a lovely map drawn over an aerial photo by Craig Schreiner hanging in our card room, and as far as I can tell nothing on it has been done. I have a copy of Craig's Master Plan, and it's fine document, but .......

K

I'm familiar with some clubs that have and this would seem to be the best way to do it.My guess is that the "retainer" idea presents a continuing cost which clubs aren't eager to shoulder.At the end of the day,it's always going to become a budget discussion.Unfortunately,golf course considerations frequently get the short stick.

[gookin]

while I am a big advocate for a good master plan, make sure the focus on the master plan does not cause you to lose focus on maintaining what you have. I recommend making what you have as good as it can be before you try to make any changes. I will tell you from experience if you and your super do a great job with what you currently have, the job of getting the membership to support executing the master plan becomes much easier.

[Davis Wildman]

An effective Master Plan is accompanied by a current, accurate and well produced basemap of all course/facility asset(s), topography, boundary and the physical constraints of the site.  Without such, all planning, discussion and subsequent action related to costs of projected changes are moot and a general waste of time.

It is important to know what you have in a measurable or quantifiable way; it then provides a baseline for performance once work begins.  The need to 'own' that information will go a long way when soliciting bids for outsourced services and consultation. 

Master Plans are suitable framing...but, they function more effectively when there is an information rich component to them.

[Bill Brightly]

Thanks to everyone who's chimed in.I think we'll be OK on the "golf course" issues given the input we have gotten/will continue to get from our Super,Pro,GCA,and members.

My worry is the putz 5 years down the road who thinks he's Tillinghast reincarnate(I've already claimed that for myself).That's why we'd like to make this as inflexible as possible,absent some real unforseen problems which may cause some deviations from the script.

Seems like this is the tightrope I'm trying to walk.

If it is not already there, make sure your club's by-laws have a clause saying that any changes to the golf course require a membership vote.

[JMEvensky]

Thanks to everyone who's chimed in.I think we'll be OK on the "golf course" issues given the input we have gotten/will continue to get from our Super,Pro,GCA,and members.

My worry is the putz 5 years down the road who thinks he's Tillinghast reincarnate(I've already claimed that for myself).That's why we'd like to make this as inflexible as possible,absent some real unforseen problems which may cause some deviations from the script.

Seems like this is the tightrope I'm trying to walk.

If it is not already there, make sure your club's by-laws have a clause saying that any changes to the golf course require a membership vote.

The problem with that is defining "changes".Over the last couple of years,several hundred pines were removed which had been planted after construction.Some members felt that this constituted "changes" to the golf course.

[Mike McGuire]

Thanks to everyone who's chimed in.I think we'll be OK on the "golf course" issues given the input we have gotten/will continue to get from our Super,Pro,GCA,and members.

My worry is the putz 5 years down the road who thinks he's Tillinghast reincarnate(I've already claimed that for myself).That's why we'd like to make this as inflexible as possible,absent some real unforseen problems which may cause some deviations from the script.

Seems like this is the tightrope I'm trying to walk.

If it is not already there, make sure your club's by-laws have a clause saying that any changes to the golf course require a membership vote.

The problem with that is defining "changes".Over the last couple of years,several hundred pines were removed which had been planted after construction.Some members felt that this constituted "changes" to the golf course.

Some members think restoring mowing lines .. green expansion - fairway recapture is also a big change.
Better to have a board of directors vote than the members.

[Bill Brightly]

Some board members think the same thing...better to have a master plan prepared by and architect, approved by the members, backed by the by-laws to keep the board out...and then implement it...

[Mike McGuire]

Should the members approve the plan or the implementation of the plan (funding)?

[Forrest Richardson]

The plan should be formally adopted. Formality and pomp is an important aspect in making a plan come to life.

[Mike McGuire]

The plan should be formally adopted. Formality and pomp is an important aspect in making a plan come to life.

Forrest-

If you were hired to do a master plan for a club would you want the members to vote on if they liked it? Should they? Are they qualified to judge it?

What if they voted no? Then what? Presumably you were hired and paid do do the design. Now what? Hire some else? Redo the plan?

Just curious as my club in in this stage right now.

[JMEvensky]

The plan should be formally adopted. Formality and pomp is an important aspect in making a plan come to life.

Forrest-

If you were hired to do a master plan for a club would you want the members to vote on if they liked it? Should they? Are they qualified to judge it?

What if they voted no? Then what? Presumably you were hired and paid do do the design. Now what? Hire some else? Redo the plan?

Just curious as my club in in this stage right now.

I'm curious too.

Somehow,there needs to be a way for a Board or Green Committee to approve a Master Plan and then have the entire membership vote to give it the strength of a By Law.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()