Erin Hills to add 2nd course

[Adam Clayman]

Yes the old fifth was a much better hole and routing. It was fascinating to climb that hill finally emerging out at the top of the hill with then start of one of golf's greatest stretches in front of you. The new fifth begged for a draw type shot aiming out over the cove but they built a cut shot hole. The addition of the housing and their proximity to the golfer is another huge negative. Re the original 16 th @ angc. Having only seen the picture with Rae's creek on the right and how the green gently fed into the creek I have a hard time believing its a better golf hole, now. It's uniqueness alone made Pebble work. Not just having another ocean hole.  

[Phil McDade]

Adam:

Well, it sort of was. EHills got a lot of initial publicity in these parts (and in the golf architecture world generally) in part because it was promoted as a piece of property in which the land itself lent itself to a minimalist approach to architecture, i.e., not a lot of earth moving. That has always been a central feature of the marketing of the course, and its none-too-subtle ambitions for landing big tournaments.

Minimalist design has clearly been a mis-understood concept. Look at two, EH and Dismal River. Both projects, obviously didn't have a clue what it meant. Otherwise the extensive "fixing" would not have been needed.

My bad. I meant to imply 'monster' as being about the cost of clubhouse. Adding significantly to the cost of the golf. The USGA should consider NOT rewarding this type of bad behavior. Using the USGA's interest as an excuse to turn it into a profit center.

Let's see at 2.5 mil, using the formula $10 for every million. That's a $25 dollar green fee.  tsk tsk. 

Adam:

I'm not trying to be pedantic here, really...but should EHills not have a clubhouse? Where exactly is your proof that the cost of the course's clubhouse has significantly pushed up green fees? EHills opened in 2006 with green fees of $150, with a small ($25) discount for Wisconsin residents. It's now $160 (actually, right now, it's $95 due to reworking at the course). Sure, EHills could have a smaller clubhouse, but it seems the relevant question would be: is the clubhouse appropriate for a course of this scale and type? As others have stated, it's not a clubhouse that dominates the land, or sticks out, or is over-sized.

If you're looking for an obnoxious, out-of-place clubhouse, see this one (not far from Erin Hills), by a somewhat name designer, at least here in the Midwest (Andy North) (it's the photo beneath the headline: Make Your Wedding Day Legenday!): http://www.thelegendatbergamont.com/

[Adam Clayman]

Phil, You are probably in a better spot to feel EH adds to the regions golfing options. I was only commenting from the cheap seats, based on a sense that was conveyed in this forum throughout the projects history. Obviously Joel and I believed that the cost of the clubhouse and the lure of an interested USGA raised costs to the uber level. It's entirely Mr. Lang's right to try and maximize his revenue stream. But, if you've ever read anything I've written on that subject you should know that I find that mindset deplorable. Mostly because it usually never pays off, in the short term. I wish Mr. Lang all the luck in the world and Link is correct in stating that at least it was fixed sooner versus later. 

Anyone who said that they are going to use completely different architects? I'll take some of that action and give 2;1.

[Steve Kupfer]

Here's a vote to get Tom back out there.

The thread that juxtaposes his routing with the final routing was fascinating.