Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects

[TEPaul]

Now that there are some threads containing lists of public or municipal course architecture and architects, it might be an interesting indicator and discussion subject to do a list of significant architects in America (or architects with signficant courses) who got involved in public or municipal golf architecture and those who never did, and perhaps some of the reasons some did and others never did.

In hopes of preventing some argument or confusion of what the era of a list should be, perhaps the subject could contain architects from the very beginning of architecture in America until the present day.

 

[A.G._Crockett]

Tom,
One problem with this is the same one that I see every time there is a "Best Public" or "Best You Can Play" list.  Many, if not most, of the courses that are listed are either resort courses open only to guests of the resort, or are so high dollar that for most of the "public" access is almost as limited as if it were a private club.

My guess is that there will be very few, if any, prominent GCA's who didn't design something that allows at least some degree of public access.  Whether or not the courses are reasonably accessible to the general public is a judgment question that we might never resolve.

[TEPaul]

AG:

I understand what you mean. I'm thinking of truly public courses, like Bethpage, Bayside, Cobbs Creek and perhaps many to most of the courses that have been on a recent list on another thread on here. Also including courses of the same vein that are not as old as those.

Frankly, I think the list should basically include the architects who did courses like that at any time and not necessarily just a list of the courses themselves.

For instance, did Travis ever do a public course? Did Wayne Stiles? Did Robert White, Thomas, Behr, or particularly Macdonald and Raynor? I'm sure the list of architects to consider is quite long and quite interesting.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Isn't there a big difference between public and public access - Public or 'Municipal' has to be owned by the state / city / country, does it not?

In GB&I, there is a clear dividing line between what is municipal and what is just accessible.

[Jim Sweeney]

Shall we clarify this topic as listing architects who designed municipally owned golf courses as an original commission (i.e., not a private club that became a municipal course) though he/she is known primarily for designing private clubs?

For example, Donald Ross is known primarily for his private club designs, but he designed George Wright in Boston.

Pete Dye would be anther example. He even made it a point to design municiapsl courses for little or no fee Wintonbury Hills, Kearney Hill (with P.B.).

[TEPaul]

Ally:

I would just go with straight public access----eg anyone can play it and it is not attached to something like a resort. Just a golf course for public play period.

Jim Sweeney:

I would agree with what you said there. I am not thinking of some course that was designed by the original architect as a private course or even a semi-private course and then became a public or municipal course later for some reason. I'm talking about architects who knew perfectly well they were doing a public access golf course and not even one that had anything to do with privacy or even limited public access for any reason.

[hick]

Ross did Triggs in Providence on land which i think the brown brothers owned. not sure if it was ever private. It is very much a muni that is owned buy the city of Providence.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

I think T. Fazio's portfolio of public courses(non-resort) has been mentioned here as lacking. However, his new Butterfield Trail GC in El Paso, TX is highly rated and it's a muni:

http://www.butterfieldtrailgolf.com/butterfield.asp?id=172&page=3600

[Tom_Doak]

TE:

I haven't been wasting my time on that other thread, so I have no idea what you are trying to prove here.  But, if it helps:

Macdonald never did a public course ... The Greenbrier was his only resort project (36 holes).  What's left of Lido and the original Deepdale are now munis, but weren't intended to be.

Raynor ... not sure.  I can't think of one.

MacKenzie designed a couple of public courses in the UK, plus Bayside which may have gotten more ink here than it ever got play in its short life.  Pasatiempo and the rest of his US courses were intended to be private.  Sandringham in Australia is a public course with a few MacKenzie holes ... I think he drew the plan for it, giving it some of the leftovers from the original Royal Melbourne course after his redesign.  But, I'm not sure of that, it might have been entirely a Russell/Morcom project.

[Garland Bayley]

Didn't MacKenzie do a muni in Sacramento?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Our Raynor course has always been open to the public even though it's owned by the school, and our players have always been welcome at Publinx events.

[DMoriarty]

MacKenzie designed "Sacramento Municipal Golf Course" which is now called Haggin Oaks.  The blueprint is in Tom D's book on MacKenzie, pages, 218-219.  While the course has taken to celebrating its MacKenzie heritage and did some sort of a so-called restoration, I am not sure how much MacKenzie was actually restored.

I thought I had read somewhere that Macdonald had something to do with the Jackson Park course built for the World's Fair in 1893, but maybe I am mistaken. 

[Garland Bayley]

MacKenzie designed "Sacramento Municipal Golf Course" which is now called Haggin Oaks.  The blueprint is in Tom D's book on MacKenzie, pages, 218-219.  While the course has taken to celebrating its MacKenzie heritage and did some sort of a so-called restoration, I am not sure how much MacKenzie was actually restored.

I thought I had read somewhere that Macdonald had something to do with the Jackson Park course built for the World's Fair in 1893, but maybe I am mistaken. 

Moriarty, you are a liar, an idiot, a fraud. How dare you contradict Tom's statement that "Pasatiempo and the rest of his US courses were intended to be private."

That's it! I'm done with this website and the Ph.D.s that hang out here.

[Tom_Doak]

David is right, I forgot Haggin Oaks.     Easy to do since I've never actually been there.

But my general point was that MacKenzie had done a few public courses.

[Tom MacWood]

TE:

I haven't been wasting my time on that other thread, so I have no idea what you are trying to prove here.  But, if it helps:

Macdonald never did a public course ... The Greenbrier was his only resort project (36 holes).  What's left of Lido and the original Deepdale are now munis, but weren't intended to be.

Raynor ... not sure.  I can't think of one.

MacKenzie designed a couple of public courses in the UK, plus Bayside which may have gotten more ink here than it ever got play in its short life.  Pasatiempo and the rest of his US courses were intended to be private.  Sandringham in Australia is a public course with a few MacKenzie holes ... I think he drew the plan for it, giving it some of the leftovers from the original Royal Melbourne course after his redesign.  But, I'm not sure of that, it might have been entirely a Russell/Morcom project.

Wasting your time? Please explain?

[DMoriarty]

MacKenzie designed "Sacramento Municipal Golf Course" which is now called Haggin Oaks.  The blueprint is in Tom D's book on MacKenzie, pages, 218-219.  While the course has taken to celebrating its MacKenzie heritage and did some sort of a so-called restoration, I am not sure how much MacKenzie was actually restored.

I thought I had read somewhere that Macdonald had something to do with the Jackson Park course built for the World's Fair in 1893, but maybe I am mistaken.  

Moriarty, you are a liar, an idiot, a fraud. How dare you contradict Tom's statement that "Pasatiempo and the rest of his US courses were intended to be private."

That's it! I'm done with this website and the Ph.D.s that hang out here.

Listen up Barley, if you want to talk to me like that you'll have to wait in line with the rest of 'em.

____________________________

Tom D.,

I've played Haggin Oaks a number of times but at least 10 years ago.  Comparing the course to the blueprint, one can see some of the basic routing features where they survived but much of it has been changed or lost.     It isn't a bad course, but if you aren't going to see a MacKenzie then this is probably a pretty good one to miss (at least as it was 10 years ago.)  

[Tim Gavrich]

There's that public nine-hole course in the Napa Valley (Northwoods, yes?) that claims to be a Mackenzie course.  Was it formerly private and therefore ineligible?

Aside from Bethpage Black, are there many public Tillinghast courses?

[Garland Bayley]

My impression is that Sharp Park is and perhaps always was a municipal MacKenzie course.
How does my impression stand up to the truth?

[Garland Bayley]

There's that public nine-hole course in the Napa Valley (Northwoods, yes?) that claims to be a Mackenzie course.  Was it formerly private and therefore ineligible?

Aside from Bethpage Black, are there many public Tillinghast courses? Don't forget Red and Blue.

Breckenridge Park in TX
Isn't there one in Kansas City too? Snopes?

[TEPaul]

"Our Raynor course has always been open to the public even though it's owned by the school, and our players have always been welcome at Publinx events."


Jim Kennedy:

Since you said it, not me, would it be too much to ask you what you mean by 'our Raynor course?'

[TEPaul]

"TE:
I haven't been wasting my time on that other thread, so I have no idea what you are trying to prove here."



TomD:

Frankly I'm glad you haven't been wasting your time on that other thread. If you had I think I would agree it would be a waste of your time. I'm not surprised you have no idea what I'm trying to prove by posting this thread but if you are interested I'd be glad to try to explain it to you.

[DMoriarty]

My impression is that Sharp Park is and perhaps always was a municipal MacKenzie course.
How does my impression stand up to the truth?

Posted by Tom MacWood on the thread with the list of top public golf courses before 1936:

[TEPaul]

Who on this website or on this thread who speaks of Sharp Park and who tries to do so with some modicum of understanding or authority has actually gone to that golf course and tried to speak to its historians and to analyze the history and architectural evolution of that golf course on site?

Have you Moriarty?

Have you MacWood?

And if not, why not?

It's one thing to sit at one's computer and find and post pictures and to try to pass oneself off as some authority on something but it's another thing entirely, and a far more important thing to actually take the time and make the effort to go on site and do some personal research work with the golf course and the people left who know it best.

[DMoriarty]

Who on this website or on this thread who speaks of Sharp Park and who tries to do so with some modicum of understanding or authority has actually gone to that golf course and tried to speak to its historians and to analyze the history and architectural evolution of that golf course on site?

Have you Moriarty?

Have you MacWood?

And if not, why not?

It's one thing to sit at one's computer and find and post pictures but it's another thing entirely, and a far more important thing to actually take the time and make the effort to go on site and do some personal research work with the golf course and the people left who know it best.

Uhhh . . . Garland asked if MacKenzie designed the course.   I provided him with a color rendering of the original plan done by MacKenzie's firm.  

Stop your foolishness.  It's embarrassing.  

[Kevin_Reilly]

Tom Paul, there are many people on this site, I think, who have been interested in Sharp Park.

There is a tremendous amount of information here:

http://www.sfpublicgolf.com/resources.htm

None of what has been posted by David Moriarty or Tom MacWood contradicts any of the reported history of the course, unless you can point out something I am missing.