RTJ2 and their "Green Proclamation"

« **Reply #25 on:** February 19, 2009, 06:51:31 PM »

OK guys.....now how would you work on that site.....there are some places where if the client wants a golf course yo u have to "move a mountain"......if you don't then someone else will.....rest assured that all of the issues you mention have been reviewed...but I do think the Indian lands are not under the same environmental and wetland guides or permitting issues as all other lands.....

« **Reply #26 on:** February 19, 2009, 07:14:29 PM »

Mike,
If I was RTJ11 I wouldn't be speaking with a forked tongue.

Personally, I think ripping up that much pristine looking forest land is a friggin' shame, and projects like that give golf a bad name. It's just more ammo for those folks who already believe golf is unresponsive to environmental issues.

« **Reply #27 on:** February 19, 2009, 09:02:51 PM »

Mike
I appreciate your point. Building a course on that site is not easy, but neither is it easy to claim such a course is environmentally sensitive and meets the ideals of your 'Green Proclamation'. I appreciate the argument that if they didn't build it some other architect would have. But can you apply your green ideals selectively only onto those projects that are suitable for their application, and ignore them when they don't? That's hardly ethical, and if you live by the 'Green Proclamation' you have to be prepared to be nailed to it. If they truly were committed to the ideals stated in there, they would have declined this project. Being as they didn't decline it, one can only draw the conclusion the proclamation is more about marketing than anything else.

« **Reply #28 on:** February 19, 2009, 09:06:28 PM »

The silly part to me is calling this a "fresh" approach.

There is nothing fresh about it, and it sure wasn't the RTJII firm which started the green "movement" so they can't even claim they got in at the grass roots level.

« **Reply #29 on:** February 19, 2009, 09:49:40 PM »

Here's my solution to it...

Convince the Indians that they'll make far more of an impression/money in that part of the world by doing something with a conservation/education angle. Use the stewardship approach that Indians are always known for and play into it. A Heritage site with a nature conservatory would need some type of planning/design component to it. Be that progressive of a company to turn down what you've always done and create a new niche. From a developer standpoint wouldn't you want the best money-making avenue? Turn the golf course down but have enough intelligence/foresight to make money on the design end. It may be rose-colored glasses from my end but I hate the "if you don't someone else will" idea because it shows no ability to improvise or create a worthwhile answer.

My biggest problem is the lesser Indian permitting guidelines. For a culture that would thrive money-wise by embracing stewardship of the land, they readily cash in to strip-mine their property. I'm not saying golf shouldn't ever happen in the mountains, just that this certain piece is much too severe. No matter what happens to the golf, that mountain can't be put back to the way it was. Sad

« **Reply #30 on:** February 21, 2009, 02:12:01 PM »

The advert is just as good as Hurdzan Fry calling themselves "Hurdzan and Fry Environmental Golf Design" at the Golf Business Forum this year. Is this a new trend that has just kicked in?

I think marketing is one area we in the EIGCA that we are just not as good the 'big boys'. We can design courses just as good but we just are not as good at marketing as well as those from over the pond.

Maybe it is because we don't like crossing that line over to 'propaganda' as much as they do. What the hell is a 'Master' Architect?

Michael, John Strawn does not work for RTJ2 anymore.

« **Reply #31 on:** February 21, 2009, 02:45:45 PM »

Quote from: Mike_Young on February 19, 2009, 06:51:31 PM

OK guys.....now how would you work on that site.....there are some places where if the client wants a golf course yo u have to "move a mountain"......if you don't then someone else will.....rest assured that all of the issues you mention have been reviewed...but I do think the Indian lands are not under the same environmental and wetland guides or permitting issues as all other lands.....

He could have left the project to a company that is less... green. But... green talk$.

Perhaps he gave the Sequoyah National folks a different brochure; one that espoused the virtues of dirt moving equipment.

« **Reply #32 on:** February 21, 2009, 04:59:21 PM »

You guys need to read the Fountainhead about once per year.....

Everybody knows marketing.....ok.....

nobody was going to build a course on that site w/o moving a lot of dirt.....and it can be done in an environmentally friendly way......

instead of aiming at all the environmentally friendly architects....name me some that are not environmentally friendly architects.....you can't....just proves marketing works.....

« **Reply #33 on:** February 21, 2009, 05:37:32 PM »

Quote

..and it can be done in an environmentally friendly way......

Mike,
This is where you lose me, and I love golf courses.

RTJ11 and the Cherokee are taking a 'pristine' environment and......
-logging out thousands of trees which no longer suck in carbon and spit out oxygen,
-moving God only knows how much dirt (look at how much they used just to build up one fairway),
-destroying the habitat of every creature that lived on, lived under, or flew over the site,
-burning thousands of gallons of diesel fuel or gasoline on site, and thousands more off site delivering materials.
-Plus, you can put up all the silt fencing in the world, but stuff always gets by, and moreso on a hilly site like that one, and now that the hills are denuded the pattern is forever changed.
-The introduction of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, etc., into an environment where they previously did not exist....and if the applications aren't done with great care the chance of run off on such a site is greatly increased.

I could go on, but I'll stop here. There's no way a development like this can be seen as environmentally friendly.

« **Reply #34 on:** February 21, 2009, 05:45:47 PM »

Jim,
Where is it that different from any other golf course other than a large dirt move which can be done in a way that will allow things to evolve back into the same pattern they were in......
All I am saying is if someone is going to build a golf course on that site...I don't see it being any less ahrmful to the environment than what we see in the pictures and I sense that was done in a way that protects the environment as best as possible under the circumstances.....
Trees....any site with that amount of trees would have the same removal...right? so do you say don't build a course if it is a treed site......
Other than a dirt move to get the basics in place.....it has to be about the same overall effect on the environment as any other course......IMHO

« **Reply #35 on:** February 21, 2009, 07:46:52 PM »

Quote from: Jim_Kennedy on February 21, 2009, 05:37:32 PM

There's no way a development like this can be seen as environmentally friendly.

Jim,

I have many of the same questions as Mike. Is there a forest golf course in the world that could meet your criteria for being environmentally friendly? No dirt moved or fossil fuels burned to construct. No trees cut to be replaced with grass (BTW, how does grass compare to trees when it comes to sucking in carbon and spitting out oxygen?). No potential erosion impacts. No chemicals used to maintain turf. No effect upon pre-existing habitat.

Does the area impacted by a course development have any relevance? For instance, you know this special forested area well. What portion of it is being transformed into turf and sand with a view to drawing golfers to connect with this special place? Is the friendliness of a course development relative, i.e., transforming 1% of a pre-existing forested area to find a golf course would seem "friendlier" than a development that changes 50% of the existing forested area, though the actual golf course development might be identical.

For a lover of golf and "the environment", in what circumstances could a golf development EVER be considered "friendly" to the environment? What courses have you played that meet your criteria?

On the matter of "the environment" in general, check this classic out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcU4t6zRAKg

« **Reply #36 on:** February 21, 2009, 11:27:15 PM »

Mike,
No, I'm not in favor of ripping up forests for golf, but that doesn't mean I see all wooded areas the same, and let me explain.
There was a thread on this site years ago in which someone was drooling over the possibility of building a course in one of the last existing stands of virgin coastal forest on the Maine coast. That's a pathetic choice, and IMO, the site for this course doesn't seem much different. On the other hand, ripping out a few hundred(cultivated) acres of 2x4's that still have their roots attached doesn't bother me much at all.

I'm not against development, I was in the construction business for years, but I am a realist, and there is no way you can look at that site and say it ...."was done in a way that protects the environment" without having to add the qualifier .."as best as possible under the circumstances".
If you think work like this doesn't make it harder for golf to be seen as a friend of, and beneficial to, the environment than I want to know what's in your red eye gravy.

Greg,
There are courses on brownfields, there are new courses being built over the remains of old ones, there are courses in the south that have restored or added many more acres of wetlands than they used for building, there are courses like Sand Hills, which was blessed with perfect land, etc., etc., etc., that are shining examples of 'friendly' golf courses.

« **Reply #37 on:** February 22, 2009, 12:56:11 AM »

Mike, Greg and Jim
I have to lean a little towards Jim's argument in this case. As I said earlier, if you emblazon all you do with this "Green Proclamation" standard then you have to be held to this "higher" standard not only by others, but also surely by yourself. Otherwise, the whole proclamation thing is just an empty piece of rhetoric.

Of course it is hard to make a golf course in a forest, especially a hilly one. The only mountain course I have designed is in Borneo and the site is around 900m above sea level in a previously logged rainforest, which was considerably degraded as a result of logging, with many logging roads and trails across the site. Due to the erosion over many years of these roads and other cleared areas, the sand had been washed out of this native soil by the 6 metres of rain that falls there each year, and deposited at the base of these mountains as large sand banks within the main river. We excavated that sand from the riverbed and trucked it back up the hill and used it for green and tee seed beds. Further, we tried to route our holes wherever we could over the logging roads and cleared areas so we could minimise the tree removal. A lot of wildlife had been pushed out by the logging activities and with this now gone, the wildlife has returned. Any cut and fill slopes can be revegetated very quickly in the tropics so it did not take long for the jungle to take back these areas. Seeing the degraded nature of the site at the very start, I had no compunction about taking on the project as I knew golf could co-exist in this location. If it was a pristine rainforest I certainly would have had second thoughts about doing it.

I appreciate that in temperate forests all this recovery takes much longer and probably needs even more consideration, especially if it was pristine beforehand, which those forests on the RTJ2 course certainly appear to be.

Most of the new course projects we have done are in degraded sites of some form or another, farming land, especially in Asia, is the most common. I have also done a couple of courses that involved rehabilitating a sand mine and a landfill. The environmental benefit there is relatively easy to see, but inserting a golf course into a pristine forest environment must be a lot harder to argue for. I've not done one so the conscience aspect of deciding to do it is not one I've had to confront.

ps here's a pic of my mountain course in Borneo, this is the first hole

« **Reply #38 on:** February 22, 2009, 03:19:29 AM »

Neil,

That looks very nice. Where in Borneo is that? I used to live in Kota Kinabalu.

Brian

« **Reply #39 on:** February 22, 2009, 04:24:25 AM »

Thanks Brian
Sarawak, its the Borneo Highlands Resort south of Kuching in the mountains near the border with Indonesian Kalimantan. Haven't been to KK myself, kept meaning to but never got around to it.

« **Reply #40 on:** February 22, 2009, 08:10:55 AM »

Look guys...I'm not saying go out and rape the forest......
And I know a little of that area where the course is located and I don't know how pristine all of the forest is in that location...much of it has been logged in the past ....... as you know there s a big difference between finding a golf course on the land and constructing a golf course on the land....
I say you don't blame the architect...that's all....you blame the client.....if he is determined he is going to put a course on such a site then someone is going to do it.....and you can try and be as environmentally responsible as possible.....I would think all of the environmentalist and agencies would see that you did not cross and lines....

« **Reply #41 on:** February 22, 2009, 08:28:25 AM »

Mike,
I know that it's not just the architect, but RTJ 11 might as well take a cue from Pete Dye and bury his 'environmental manifesto' in a pot bunker as it's pretty clear that he cannot see the forest for the trees.

Pristine doesn't necessarily mean virgin.

..and Mike, EPA's and DEP's and DEC's don't choose the site.

« **Reply #42 on:** February 22, 2009, 05:12:13 PM »

As some of you have already said, it's pretty much advertising but I guess my feeling is that they did a pretty good job at stating what we should all be trying to do. Anything that helps the general public and regulators understand that golf and golf course development are good for the environment can't be all bad. Kevin

« **Reply #43 on:** February 23, 2009, 02:20:47 AM »

So, what I understand to be the defense to this point is... everybody knows the ad is stretching the truth, so it's OK.

Is that the story?

« **Reply #44 on:** February 23, 2009, 03:11:23 AM »

What is the purpose of this ad? Is RTJ2 trying to get more business with it? Make a political statement? Something else?

« **Reply #45 on:** February 23, 2009, 03:19:35 AM »

Quote from: Jim Nugent on February 23, 2009, 03:11:23 AM

What is the purpose of this ad? Is RTJ2 trying to get more business with it? Make a political statement? Something else?

Of course they are trying to get business with it! Do you think they feel like giving away around $2000 in advertising for the fun of it just to make a statement?

Being green is huge in Asia at the moment and that is one of the areas where RTJ2 have a lot of business as well as Europe. Golf in Europe has been pretty green without needing these sort of 'proclamations' from design firms telling us what they are hoping to do.

Of the courses in Norway, RTJ2 probably moved more material on their three courses designed here than probably all of the courses previously built before them. They did however also design the two of the best in Norway as well though.

« **Reply #46 on:** February 23, 2009, 03:44:10 AM »

Quote

Golf in Europe has been pretty green without needing these sort of 'proclamations' from design firms telling us what they are hoping to do.

Of the courses in Norway, RTJ2 probably moved more material on their three courses designed here than probably all of the courses previously built before them. They did however also design the two of the best in Norway as well though.

Some places in Europe cutting trees is near impossible, and filling in some places is restricted to no more than two meters above original grade. I had one region try to limit us to 50cm up and down.

Scandinavia (exempting Denmark and adding Finland) is another story. Trees and rock abound, and the properties you get usually require clearing and blasting to some degree to get them to function for golf. The native trees tend to grow like weeds. Too often in the past they didn't cut wide enough corridors or deal with the rock very well, so you ended up with Maximum Security Golf Courses; exhibiting the same strategy of bowling for novices... keep it out of the gutter.

I wasn't going to mention it, but continuing where Brian left off, RTJ has a project on the go near Warsaw; flattish and sandy; and they're moving about 700,000 to make a TPC type course. That doesn't bother me in the least, but when you make an ad like the above...

Is that the story? The ad is OK because everybody knows it is stretching the truth?

« **Reply #47 on:** February 23, 2009, 03:20:54 PM »

Tony
personally I don't think it is OK, but RTJ2 are the ones who have to live with the impacts and scrutiny that may come their way from the promotion of the Green Proclamation.

« **Reply #48 on:** February 24, 2009, 05:04:31 AM »

GUIDELINES FOR PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

1. A golf course architect shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, and deceit…or misrepresentation.

2. A golf course architect shall not indulge in…exaggerated, misleading or false publicity.

Source: American Society of Golf Course Architects

« **Reply #49 on:** February 24, 2009, 06:17:10 AM »

Find some learning in this all.

A) banks worldwide require "green" approaches to be addressed

B) There's some great history in them thar hills.. "

from http://www.manataka.org/page81.html

THE CHEROKEE LANGUAGE

Sequoyah is credited by historians as the inventor of the Cherokee syllabary. However, ancient lore asserts there was a written Cherokee language thousands of years ago. According to legend, the primeval Cherokee written language was lost as the tribe migrated across the continent and their numbers dwindled according to living conditions and influences of more numerous neighbors.

Cherokee comprises the southern branch of the Iroquoian language family. The northern branch Onodaga, Oneida, Seneca-Cayuga, and Mohawk. The linguistic split occurred about 3000 years ago, when the Cherokee migrated south from the Great Lakes region in east central North America to what is now Tennessee, Georgia, and North Carolina.

In the 1800's, historian Mooney found three dialects of the language as his studied the Cherokee culture. The middle dialect, Kituwah, is the only one spoken by the Cherokee today.

Other indigenous people developed hieroglyphic writing systems, such as the Delaware, Ojibwa, Aztec and Maya. But the only people to have created a syllabary type of alphabet are the Cherokee.

The Cherokee language split into two main dialects after the Cherokee began voluntary migration west to Arkansas prior to the Revolutionary War and continuing up to the Removals (Trail of Tears) in 1838-1839. A small number of Cherokee hid in the mountains of North Carolina and later became the Eastern Band of Cherokee. Today, the United Keetoowah (Kituwah) Band of Cherokees in Oklahoma comprise the largest concentration of traditional-speaking western-dialect Cherokees. The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma conducts regular language programs.

Today, Cherokee is the second most widely used Native American language, spoken by an estimated 20,000 Cherokee in northeastern Oklahoma and another 5,000 near the Qualla Reservation in North Carolina.

One of the few American Indian languages to be growing is Cherokee

C) Course is near Harrah's Casino on reservation.. hmmm probably quite eco frinedly

go trout fishing

D) if anybody had bothered to look..

A PLEASING PROFILE

The Qualla Boundary, the 100-square-mile sovereign nation of the EBCI, encompasses parts of five Western North Carolina counties: Cherokee, Graham, Jackson, Haywood, and Swain. Its population, 8,092 as of the 2000 US Census, consists primarily of direct descendants of those Cherokee Indians managed to avoid “The Trail of Tears” – the forced exile to Oklahoma in the late 1830s.

200 acres taken down for a golf course in 100 square miles.. 0.3125% of their land

News:

Mike_Young

Jim_Kennedy

Neil_Crafter

Michael Dugger

Adam Russell

Brian Phillips

Tony Ristola

Mike_Young

Jim_Kennedy

Mike_Young

Greg Murphy

Jim_Kennedy

Neil_Crafter

Brian Phillips

Neil_Crafter

Mike_Young

Jim_Kennedy

Kevin Norby

Tony Ristola

Jim Nugent

Brian Phillips

Tony Ristola

Neil_Crafter

Tony Ristola

Steve Lang

An Error Has Occurred!