Duany says : "agriculture is the new golf." Agriburbia.......

[Mike_Young]

Lately I have seen this concept placed in a couple of land plans....but read this blog:  http://marynewsom.blogspot.com/2009/05/agriculture-is-new-golf.html    He wrote the book on New Urbanism and is probably on to something here....BTW Duany actually has an appearance fee on many of his land plan projects....he sort of took it to a new level.....a "signature" land planner....and now we will be seeing "signature" gardens

[michael damico]

i believe there has been several courses designed with vineyards as the native areas. i forget exactly which courses/designers, but a couple in Cali. (i believe Morrish designed one, but dont quote me on it)

on another note, hasnt Mackenzie been quoted several times saying that the two land uses just dont mix. great agricultural land is not the best suitable for golf courses and vice/versa.

duany makes a great point with the amount of people who live in g.c communities(the number has actually gone down since i researched it 3 years ago) and don't even golf. they are there for the serenity of scenery, so why not attempt something along those lines that Duany suggests? this is a good topic.

[Adam Russell]

Seems like both areas can exist together. Anyone played here at Kabi in Australia?

http://www.kabigolf.com.au/aboutus.asp

BTW, Duany created in my mind one of the creepiest places in America with Seaside Florida, so perhaps we should take the "godfather" of New Urbanism's theories with a grain of salt.

[Mike_Young]

Adam,
When are you stopping by?

Yep Duaney is some promoter....
The way I figure this garden stuff..it can take from golf....I'm in the process of developing a USGA(United States Gardening Assoc) root zone spec for "mater plants"....garden cart paths......and maximum slope for corn planting....we can make money off this stuff too   all it takes is marketing....can't you see the pristine canning facilities in some of the garden club houses.....eliminating wine lockers in clubs for private peach preserve lockers....graphite hoe handles of varying torques, perimeter weighted shovels and when it comes to chems and fertilizers we will blow it out the water.....

[Melvyn Morrow]

I hope I understand the post, so here goes

By all means certainly consider all the options, investigate the price of land suitable for agriculture, however MHO is that we are distancing ourselves from the original concept of a golf course.

At a time of financial crisis why do we want to make the process that bit more expensive, costing that bit more to play golf. I just cannot understand the mentality that wants to use prime land (which in its self is probably not suitable for golf in the first place – i.e. IMO the Castle Course at St Andrews spring to my mind – see the following photos).
Before

After

I believe we are entering a period – how long that  will be is in the hands of the Gods, when we should be concentrating on just the course by developing the design and architecture, leaving aside those expensive add-on such as cart tracks (don’t worry this is not a rant about carts), expensive Club Houses housing developments. Back to basics, keeping costs to a minimum, but offering just golf.  I do mean more interesting routing, real traps/hazards for to force the golfer to plan his shots with care. Perhaps question should be asked about the duration of flight of the ball, perhaps take some measures to encourage the ground game. I would go as far as experiment with bring back some of the older hazards like stone walls, turf dikes if none available, reduce bunkers but include deep bunkers that forces a retreat escape near the hole. The word is excitement or fun factor, to force one to set aside ones normal game and go with the flow of the course. I believe when most of your travel to GB&I your call this quirky. As I have said before, I don’t recognise quirky as it is more or less standard on most of the course I like to play.

Am I wrong, well look at the faces of those who have just finished 18 holes at North Berwick for the first time. That I believe explains partly what I am driving at. But would it have been fun if the course had been built on good quality farmland, no IMHO I do not believe it would be even close to the quality we currently have.

However, we should look at all possibilities, but for the time being I sincerely believe that the cost of golf must come down for the average golfer, that is if you want them to play your course.

In closing, I expect many will counter that the Links Trust courses are not cheap, in fact TOC & Castle Course are expensive, but it’s a question of desire, of supply and demand. The Courses in St Andrews are in demand and over the years the introduction of each new course from the New Course onwards has been because of that demand and over crowding - being that St Andrews is the Home of Golf.  By wanting to play and experience TOC we, the golfers actually set the price. Let’s not forget the thrill (and possible pending disaster) of Teeing off at the 1st Tee when you are called, yet this is totally overshadowed when you play the approach to the 18th Green. How many dream of walking in the footsteps of the greats of golf as you play your last (hopefully last) shot and sink the put on the last hole of TOC.
TOC 1st Fairway

TOC 18th Fairway

TOC 18 Green


I firmly believe we need to search out the right locations for golf courses and not rape the land just to create perhaps an average course that will no doubt need more money spent on it over the years to achieve a reasonable standard.   As with all things many may not agree with my opinion and may have a totally justifiable alternative.

Melvyn       

[David_Tepper]

Melvyn -

In the abstract, your thesis is correct. It would be nice if future golf courses could be built on land that is inherently suitable for the game, inexpensive to acquire and near a large enough population to sustain the course as a viable business.

The reality is that much, if not most, of land with those characteristics are no longer available. That is the case in the U.S. and I expect it is the same in GB&I and Europe. Environmental laws & regulations worldwide, which did not exist in the days when Old Tom, Willie Park Jr. and James Braid were designing courses, has taken much of the that might be suitable for golf courses off the table.

There is plenty of land in the center of the U.S. (Nebraska, Kansas, South Dakota, etc.) that offers sites suitable for building golf courses. A dozen or so courses have been built (or are being built) there over the past 5-10 years. The problem is most of them are far away from population centers large enough to support the courses on an ongoing basis.

DT

[Mike_Young]

Melvyn,
I was not saying to integrate golf and farming.....I think what it says is that these types of amenities will be replacing golf in future developments as an alternative...

[David_Tepper]

The Wente course in Pleasanton/Livermore and the Eagle Vines course in Napa are golf courses that integrate grape vineyards into the routing of the course.

There is a residential development in Livermore that includes a "mini" vineyard into the property of each house. The tending of the vines and the harvesting of the grapes is handled by an outside service, but the owners of the homes have the status of thinking they are in the wine business.   

[Pete_Pittock]

Last year there was a move to put some housing along two of our fairways. The only way to get around zoning laws was to have very big lots and use agriculture/viniculture to make them qualify as 'farms'.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Guys

Thanks for the input. However, I feel that over the last 30 years or so the actual selection of sites for courses has been…, let us just say IMHO not very suitable.

I feel that the rush to build courses – I am not talking about all but  a large portion, did not take golf into account, it seemed to be an after thought, if you understand my meaning. Through these courses we have been inflicted with
many of the modern gizmos, which I am not that keen on, perhaps as a distraction, but more probability to help raise revenue. These courses seem to age so quickly, and appear to be frequented by the casual golfer.

I like our club scene, but there is nothing better than to visit other clubs and courses, trying out the unknown.  A little example is Killin G C at the west end of Loch Tay, certainly not a great course but fun with old stonewalls and the river. Always stopped there for a break in the late 1970’s, early 1980’s. There again two years ago and still had fun. For me these are the type of courses we should visit, they are natural and well settled into the valley of the Tay. I would be happy to see more based upon this format to attract the general
public.

As for sites in GB&I there are quite a few still available including links sites, but the likes of Trump scare the hell out of people who whilst like the idea of more jobs, hate the thought of what it may turn into. Smaller sites with good catchment area for members and that something, to attract the visitor is more cost effective and attractive to the local communities, but probably not for the owner or developer, hence the importance of the club scene. Clubs may struggle at times but I believe it is the heart of our game over here. We need less complicated courses and more in keeping with the land, which will always get my vote.

I believe that some developers may think that they can build TOC or North Berwick overnight, by that I mean create a housing development centred around a golf course, but they forget that these courses/towns took centuries to mature into what we see today.  Golf is not a game of speed, nor is that the basis of the development of our courses, yet many of those playing golf today want to wiz around, however not within the 3-4 hours we generally achieve here but in 5-6 hours. Mechanically aid or not, golf is not a Marathon.

Melvyn   

[Adrian_Stiff]

Melvyn- We have had this same arguement time and time again. The great lands that are available for great natural golf courses simply just don't exist anymore or if they do they are too remotely located. We have to go to inferior natural sites in order to satisfy demand near populated areas. No nice soils exist around many UK cities, I am sure you are for golf for ALL and so we have to build on the land that we get offerred, today great sites for golf need to tick many boxes, you need electric, water, telephone, good road networking in order to make the accountancy work. We need to remake dull land interesting for golf, I don't agree with you (although I do like your posts and I am sure we share the same passions about golf history) that the Castle Course was not fit for purpose. I think it contains some great looking features and regardless of the finished product as a golf course (I have not seen it LIVE) I think Mr Kidd formed that land to look like golf land and used the sea and integrated the town backdrop brilliantly. The picture you posted to me is wow, as an architect that always gets crap land, I have to make golf courses for people to enjoy from flat fields, but after a few years when the deer roam and the birds are singing and nesting on the man made golf habitat it is satisfying, the land may not have initially been fit for purpose though. If your ever near Bristol, pop in for a wee dram.

[Sean_A]

Melvyn

I agree with you in principle, but your approach completely ignores the business aspect of golf course development.  Land is often at a premium where the market for a new course is viable.  Sure, there are exceptions to the standard models and in these times those exceptions should probably define the rule.  In other words, we don't need no more stinkin' courses, especially expensive ones which really don't help grow the game in the long term - if growing the game is important to you.  However, where a great course ca be built there is a business opportunity and despite my dislike of the business side of golf (this is the one area that systematically erodes what is good about the game) it is here to stay and necessarily so.  I think you are better off campaigning on why subtle features on flatish land are a great blessing in disguise and should be more celebrated by archies (see the various Wolf Point threads to catch my drift of subtle). 


Ciao

[Melvyn Morrow]

Adrian, Sean

I certainly take your point and understand your positions.

I may be regarded as a dreamer by many on this site, but I feel strongly about golf, believing it is never over until the fat Lady sing - as the saying goes. Whilst not a designer in the Golfing Industry, I have been involved with design and project management for nearly 30 years. During that time we were forced to think outside the box for many of our Clients who wanted that little bit more, that bit of theatre which can make or break a commercial venture which would be open to all including staff as well as the general public. Some project had what appeared bottomless pits as far as money, others ran on extremely tight budgets. “If there is a way, there is always a F------ Way” was not quite our motto, but rather close. Hence, my belief that even in golf change can take place, that we can redress the errors/wrongs ,then again move forward – nothing is insurmountable as long as you have the faith.

I agree that new ‘fit for purposes’ courses are today few and far between, but that does not say they are not there. As mentioned earlier there are at least six sites that I can think of that could be successful as a commercial venture, but not the Trump way, but with community support and backing.

This was how nearly all courses/clubs started in GB&I, from the support and backing from the local community. Something that I believe we tends not to see much these days, because we have lost sight of what golf is all about – its us the people, yes money has its part but fundamentally its was about the people. Today it is about money, developments, golf is a lost leader to attract the money. However, we have it arse about face, we have lost that thing we once enjoyed, which was part of our lives and made us then what we were, a community, which helped neighbours to came together. From this golf sprang fast and quickly ,first through Scotland then the rest of GB&I before being exported worldwide. By community, I mean from the Earl, Lord, landed gentry, through to the businessmen, doctors, Minister of the Church and the ordinary man & woman in the street. Golf in the late 19th Century was a great leveller, certainly in Scotland (alas it did not quite export that way to England).

The point is we can do more or less what we want is we gather the right-minded people to help. This is still very true in golf today, but it seems to me – noting I have very little knowledge of the Design/Construction world of golf – that it is only the moneymen who develope new projects. Their interest does not seem to be pro golfer, but in how much profit they can squeeze out of not the course but the development.  You mentioned the Castle Course, its there to milk as much money out of golfers as possible. Its in the St Andrews area, but please do not KIDD (sorry about that one) yourself it’s not a St Andrews course.  I feel the money spent on the course is verging on the obscene, which I believe proves my point that land was not fit for purpose, but the location near to St Andrews allowed it to be called St Andrews 7th Course – sorry bollocks – ‘this is not golf as we know it’nor is it a St Andrews course. However, do not misunderstand me the design is actually interesting, but location is totally wrong and as far as the Links Trust is concerned I have more faith in them than the decision makers at The R&A (if they are still alive).

Trying to get back to the point that there are out there in Scotland many sites that can still be made into real good courses with the help from the local community. In addition, there are many old courses, which have disappeared over the years that could be reinstated for a fraction of the cost of the Castle Course. Yes, a full inspection would need to be made followed by discussion. A few examples, sites like the old Crawford site, then we have the Fernie course Arbory Brae that Archie Ward and his brother have been trying to re-open. Also Biggar, another love of Alfie’s.
The Crawford Course.

PS I expect some will look at the site, stating that carts will be required. Pity as course looks like fun and was regarded once as a good course.

I accept that not all are suitable but look to some of the older closed sites and there are serious possibilities, but the local community will need to be involved – which to my way of thinking is one of the requirements to build a successful club/course. Many of these old courses are on farmland, but not on what we would call rich quality land but more than adequate for golf, well IMHO.

We just need to look, listen and perhaps Scotland may just surprise again, when it comes to golf.

Melvyn