News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
The process of designing a golf course
« on: August 22, 2010, 08:58:42 PM »
I am just about done reading HWW's "Following Through" and in the Augusta chapter he talks about the process of designing a golf course.  He says the following is the usual process...

1---Find natural sites for greens and tees

2---If possible, work backward from green site, deciding on direction and swing of the fairway

3--this will reveal specific spots on the fairway which will be ideal spots for opening up the greens for approach shots

4--and this will reveal correct placement of tees and/or the right side of the tee

Furthermore, he says the ideal strategic designer will open up at least two routes to the green/hole from the tee.  He thinks this type of design will reward the aggressive player for daring and proficient play, while at the same time rewarding clear thinking and prudence. 

I think the last few sentences are undeniable, but to all the architects (and anyone who wants to comment)...

Do you agree with his process for designing a golf course?

Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The process of designing a golf course
« Reply #1 on: August 22, 2010, 09:42:40 PM »
1. Drink copious quantities of........

2. Pass out......

No seriously folks, I really think the "find natural green sites" is kind of a myth.  Its not that you don't, but its just kind of hard to conceptualize a golf hole one part at a time.

I tend to visualize golf holes as the golfer plays them, finding a tee first.

I also tend to put 18 holes down anywhere just to make sure I have enough land, then focus on corners and edges IF I need to use all the property of 160-200 acres. If I have a larger site, this isn't as critical.  On most sites, there isn't enough excess land to work away from the corners.

In a housing course, identifying the floodplains, valleys and other land parcels the developer can't get sewer to, or aren't other wise conducive to home development is the first step.

BTW, who are ya gonna believe - HWH who designed exactly zero golf courses, or me?
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Colin Macqueen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The process of designing a golf course
« Reply #2 on: August 22, 2010, 09:53:37 PM »
Mac/Jeff,
Given HWW's statements is their any evidence that Augusta National was ultimately designed and constructed in this manner by McKenzie and Jones?

Cheers Colin
"Golf, thou art a gentle sprite, I owe thee much"
The Hielander

Trey Stiles

Re: The process of designing a golf course
« Reply #3 on: August 22, 2010, 10:02:04 PM »
I think you forgot a step ... Make sure the developer has commitment & funding in place before you do a ton of work   :o

I'm always amazed by how much " pre sale " work can go into getting a job ... I had a developer client who had a great site , already had some development going on , decided he wanted to do another golf course ... I introduced him to a great architect , we worked and worked and worked on multiple routing plans , alternative clubhouse locations , ect. , ect. , ect. ..... the client loved the work , then the client pulled the plug .... Ouch !


Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The process of designing a golf course
« Reply #4 on: August 22, 2010, 10:03:17 PM »
Jeff...

In regards to believing HWW or you (an actual architect), that is why I asked the question on this forum.  I have always been extremely interested in how you guys go about this process and as much as I respect HWW's writing he is not an architect, as you pointed out.  

Thanks for the great answer and the caveats about different property types and the like.



Colin...

I really have no idea how Augusta National was actually designed.  Perhaps someone elses does.


FYI...Trey posted as I was typing, I haven't had a chance to read it yet.
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The process of designing a golf course
« Reply #5 on: August 22, 2010, 10:35:29 PM »
Mac, On a recent trip, I was told the course I was playing was designed just as your book says. Since the designer is well known for his aesthetics, I found his choices on that particular course, to be mostly true. I doubt every hole can be designed in this manner, but, until you need to get back to the clubhouse, I don't see a problem.
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

paul cowley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The process of designing a golf course
« Reply #6 on: August 22, 2010, 11:21:09 PM »
No. not at all....his premise suggests that one has an easily walkable and open design field...which is rarely the case now.

It's nice sounding but just Old School romance...not that I begrudge them their day.

Its la la really.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2010, 08:29:59 AM by paul cowley »
paul cowley...golf course architect/asgca

Chris Buie

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The process of designing a golf course
« Reply #7 on: August 22, 2010, 11:58:05 PM »
I seem to remember hearing that RTJ used to pull out a topo map and put X's where the high points were.  The routing was apparently derived from that.  That's what I recall anyway.
It really would be something to go with an arch to an untouched site and see how it is done from scratch.  I'm guessing that would be the fun part.  Dealing with the economics, personnel and sometimes dubious desires of the owners would be the more taxing part I would imagine.

Melvyn Morrow

Re: The process of designing a golf course
« Reply #8 on: August 23, 2010, 07:01:00 AM »


Jeff

BTW, who are ya gonna believe - HWH who designed exactly zero golf courses, or me?

DO YOU REALLY WANT ME TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION ;)

Melvyn


Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The process of designing a golf course
« Reply #9 on: August 23, 2010, 09:55:34 AM »
Just for grins, here is some of the things I have written about routing over the years. 

FOR CYBERGOLF NO. 5

Routing Plans for the Second Golf Course at Giants Ridge

By Jeffrey  D.  Brauer


After my first round of golf, I was hooked on golf course architecture. The routing changed direction often, and got me wonderfully lost in the middle of the wooded property.  Somehow, it didn’t occur to me that the holes could be arranged to start and return at the clubhouse, so I made sure I had change for bus fare to get me back to clubhouse!  And, when I came up a slope from eight green to nine tee, saw the clubhouse behind the green and smelled burgers cooking (just when I was getting hungry!), I thought to myself, “the guy who designed this is a genius!”

A masterful routing does provides for important things like returning nines for the hungry, the tired, and the golfers yearning to be free to go home.  So, that night, I sketched the routing on napkins – as sophisticated as some architects ever get!

There are no set rules for routing a golf course, save one - If a routing works out well after just one try, I make a careful hole count! For some reason, 17 or 19 holes are always easier than that pesky requirement for 18!
 
Routing cannot be by “formula” – it must be born of careful study of site properties.  The first step is thorough analysis of the property’s natural features, including soils, drainage patterns, geology (including subsurface rock – which we obviously try to avoid with the routing for cost reasons), trees, views, surrounding land uses, planned and future utilities, and the like.  More and more, environmental impact assessments are prepared by outside consultants.  These do not replace the architect’s work, but they often add to it!  Mostly, they identify “off limits” environmental zones, such as wetlands, high quality forests, historic sites, sensitive habitats, and other legally protected areas. 

Routing doesn’t usually come easy, especially with increasing land use restrictions that ‘’golden age” architects never considered.  I often prepare twenty or more preliminary schematics.  I used to label these starting with “A”, but often run out of letters midway through public hearings.  I now use a numbering scheme, but haven’t hit infinity.

It’s easier to correct things in planning, rather than moving millions of yards of earth during construction.  So, I route a few schemes, then walk the property and route some more, making sure I cover every possibility. A good architect talks to the land, asking it what kind of feature it wants to be – a green, tee or fairway – and listens. Routings in the south always take longer, because the land speaks more slowly, usually in a soft drawl. But, this process always works – except internationally, when the land speaks back in a foreign language.

Golf design critic Bradley Klein says “Routing is Destiny”, setting the course’s eternal footprint – until the end of time or at least until death by bulldozer.  While misconceived tees, greens, and hazards are fairly easy to rebuild, critical routing mistakes like inadequate room for a practice range, are impossible, or impossibly expensive, to correct.

The primary goal of any routing plan is to find the 18 most natural golf holes.  Given this, it may seem strange that it’s the last thing done in routing.  First, we simply try to fit any 18 holes on the property.  Many landowners have property that’s too small, and ask us, charitably phrased, to squeeze a size nine course into a size seven dress!  We do this using pre-made clear plastic golf holes, which never fails to disappoint visitors.  The second order of business is locating a few potential places for the clubhouse.

The clubhouse area must have room  (as little as 4-6 acres, with elaborate clubhouses needing more) for parking (150-200 cars), cart storage and staging, a tournament pavilion, scoreboard, and “general milling about” on Holes 1 and 10.  There should be enough area for future expansion of the clubhouse or the addition of other facilities.  The popularity of croquet, for example, may skyrocket, and it’s best to be ready! A clubhouse on a roomy site appears gracious and stately, while a cramped one doesn’t.  Tight spacing is detrimental to efficient operation.  And, some of the most terrifying opening tee shots in golf (Like Merion) result from teeing off from just in front of a clubhouse, where every one close enough to watch!

We must also find a convenient adjacent area for a practice range, putting and chipping areas, which usually take 15 acres. If possible, this should be an open area, as it always seems a shame to remove such a large amount of trees. Practice sand bunkers pose safety problems from “sculled” shots.  Practice bunkers should allow those shots to stray harmlessly into unused areas.  Ideally, the sand bunker is located near the practice range, where these shots can be retrieved with the ball picker.

What else makes a good clubhouse location?  Several things, including:

Access, Proximity and Identity

The golf course needs identity, usually accomplished with Traditionally, clubhouses are located on prominent hills, with good views of the most scenic portions of the property, which helps establish identity.

The clubhouse should be easy to get to, with a direct and safe accessibility from a main road.  Clubhouses accessed from secondary roads are hard to find. A course west of town usually has its clubhouse near the eastern boundary, for example.  While most golfers will find the course, why make it inconvenient?

For cost reasons, the clubhouse should be located close to existing utilities like power, water and sewer.  The economics of golf don’t allow for money to be spent on buried, unseen necessities that don’t impact or improve the quality of the course.



Jurisdiction

If a course is within multiple governmental jurisdictions, the clubhouse should be located in the most advantageous area for taxes, utility rates, and municipal services. For municipally owned courses, the clubhouse ideally retains alcohol and sales taxes within the city’s jurisdiction to maximize revenue to the city.


Administration

Most golf courses prefer visual control of Holes 1, 9, 10, 18 and cart staging areas.  If there is an “off season” when staffing is minimized to a single person, visual control of the first tee is necessary.  A starter at the first tee is required during peak times, with another person in the pro shop, servicing customers.  A clubhouse near the finishing holes facilitates club drop off and returning carts, etc.

Food and Beverage Service

Good views, including those to the 9th or 18th greens to watch other golfers finish, encourages golfers to stay for food and beverages after the round. Arranging circulation from the 9th and 18th greens with easy access to the clubhouse and restrooms is convenient and studies show that food and beverage sales increase with each “opportunity to buy.” With emergence of the food and beverage carts, and where course restrooms are provided, this is not as critical.

Privacy

The clubhouse location should avoid proximity to existing or proposed homes, as its operation is not compatible with single family housing. High-density housing (such as club condos) is favorably placed near the clubhouse. In general, the clubhouse and parking area should be a “stand alone” facility, located within the boundaries of the golf course envelope.

Placing the clubhouse too near a church or school is often frowned upon, not only because of the alcohol sales, but also because of potential “defections” to the much more attractive facility next door!

Course Orientation

A clubhouse located near “12 noon” is generally preferred.  It sets up holes in a north/south direction. As the clubhouse moves clockwise around the site, it becomes progressively less desirable. An eastern or southern site is acceptable. A western site is undesirable, starting opening holes to the east – and directly into the sun.  Closing holes will run west, also finishing into the sun.  Playing into the sun is sometimes unavoidable, but it is particularly bad to open or close a round with bad sun orientation as it creates and leaves a bad impression, and may slow down play.

Usually, one or two sites fit those criteria, and quick test routings see which one has the most overall potential to fit (in most cases!) returning nines, the practice areas, approach drives and parking lots in a nice package.  Then, the process of finding the best natural golf holes begins.

At the Quarry Course, our decision was quick, but not painless.  The selected site was on the outside curve of the main highway, with utilities in place, and a killer view of the Embarrass Mine Lake. It was a bit on the small side, but the main operation was to remain at the hotel and clubhouse for the first course.  Its location on the highway minimized costs, and was convenient to both sides of the road – and we knew the road would split the course into two nines. It allowed good sun orientation as well.

Our first hint of a problem came when the soils engineer recommended the clubhouse be built at the bottom of the lake, reasoning, he said, that it would get there in a few years anyway!  We had picked an old spoil pile for a location, which did not provide stable support for a foundation.  No problem, we said, and quickly relocated it slightly west, but still on the lake bank for that killer view.  Then the consultants recommended it be set back because of the possibility of the steep lake bank slumping.  The view is still there, but not as good as it could be if located right on the edge. A similar fate befell our first hole, which might have been the most terrifying opener in golf, playing over the lake as shown in the picture below, if it could be built.

So, we began our search for the next best 18 holes on the property, and that will be the subject of our next installment.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The process of designing a golf course
« Reply #10 on: August 23, 2010, 09:56:48 AM »
The next installment for my series on CYBERGOLF
Routing the Second Golf Course at Giants Ridge
(Subtitled: Finding Natural Golf Holes on an unnatural site)

By Jeffrey  D.  Brauer


If you are interested enough in golf architecture to be reading this, you will surely have already read elsewhere that natural golf holes are highly desirable.  Why?  Well first off, many jurisdictions have banned unnatural golf holes, and it has nothing to do with funky relationships between the holes and barnyard animals! No, seriously folks, there are areas – more in Europe but also in the United States, where government agencies have written rules concerning what golf holes should or should not be allowed to do in their city/county/province or whatever.  They write rules saying things like “There shall be no change of grade more than 2 meters (plus or minus) throughout the golf corridor”.
 
You can imagine some snot nosed 25 year old government bureaucrat trying to keep busy, who has never even played golf, setting some rules, imagining he or she knows more about design than people who have designed courses all their lives…. at least, that’s what I imagine!  To be charitable to the 25 year olds in question, they probably don’t have runny noses, and they are probably trying to put into law what most golf architects consider the holy grail of design – to find golf holes that fit the topography naturally. And that is a laudable goal, but it’s not always attainable.  And, even if it was, some of the greatest golf holes ever break this rule by moving hundreds of thousands of cubic yards of earth to attain certain objectives – like drama – that simply don’t exist on the property.

So, rather than trying to fit “one size fits all” legislation on something like golf design, let me just say that we should recognize each site – and architects intentions as unique.  But, there are great reasons to find natural holes – they usually look best, play best, and are often the least expensive to build.

So, just what is a Natural Golf Hole? I have always defined it as one that does not require substantial earthmoving to achieve the basic objectives of the hole.  So, what are these basic objectives?  Again, if you’ve read anything about golf architecture, you have probably heard writers waxing eloquently about strategic golf design.  Over time, golfers and architects have accommodated strategic play, recognizing that a well-designed golf hole contains several elements that help the golfer achieve a strategic plan, including:

•   Visibility

Strategic planning requires that the golf hole be clearly visible as the golfer contemplates his tee shot. After all, we extol the virtues of strategic golf, not guesswork golf!  Confusion and uncertainty often ruin golf shots, so golfers like to be absolutely sure of the correct line.  Ideally, the entire hole is visible from the tee including the green and hazards so that the golfer can plan one shot ahead.  The best holes allow the golfer to see the end result of his shots on the fairway and green – just because it’s satisfying to see your shot end up on the fairway or near the pin!
Having the base of the pin visible on both tee and approach shots allows golfers knowledge of how far the cup is set from green edges. A visible target area is not necessarily well defined, and a blind target area can occasionally be well defined with correct framing.  In feature design, framing bunkers or mounds and grassing patterns will be introduced to show the correct line of play, but only if the framework for such features is present in the routing.

While many argue that a hole is blind only once, the high preponderance of upscale public golf course being built today suggests that many golfers will play the course only once or twice a year – not enough to remember nuances of design. Partial or full blindness is more acceptable – but still not popular - at country clubs.  Lots of lawyers are typically members, so no one wants to hear “that’s your ball over by the dead guy in the next fairway.”  So striving for vision is important for safety as well.  And, fully visible holes also speed play by reducing time spent looking for golf balls hit over the blind hill.

•   Receptivity

For strategic design to work, the course must reward properly planned and played shots by having target areas receptive and allowing subsequent shots to be played.

 Fairways are most receptive if:

•   Oriented with the direction of the prevailing wind and cross slope in the landing area.
•   Fairways naturally (or easily correctible to):

•   “Predictable cross and down slopes to prevent a tee shot from rolling “out of control.”  (Generally less than 10%, and sometimes half that, depending on grass types. Greater cross slopes are acceptable on uphill landing areas since uphill slope and limits roll .)
•   Raised on the outside edges of doglegged fairways.
•   Fairways slightly concave to retain shots in the fairway.
•   Avoid creating difficult shots such as severe uphill shots from downhill lies.

Greens are receptive if:

•   Raised in the back to stop the momentum of an approach shot.  Generally, the uphill pitch should be greater for long iron approach shots, downwind shots, uphill shots and shots coming from downhill lies.  Each of these shots needs “a little extra help” in stopping.

Interestingly, Tillinghast wrote that long iron approach shots needed less pitch, while a short iron approach needed more.  In those days, golf shots and clubs were not standardized and there was a distinct difference in the method of playing a short iron shot with “check” and a long iron approach, which was expected to roll on the green.  Few players consider this today, so the philosophy is reversed. 

•   Placed in a “setting”, with a backdrop of a ridge or trees to show the back of the green – and the end of the hole clearly. Most greens should feature a backdrop of small mounds to. These mounds serve the double purpose of helping hold the “hot” approach shot near the green.

Safety

No hole is a good one if it is unsafe.  This means they must be properly spaced, and occasionally, this takes precedence over using a natural golf feature.  Spacing has increased over the first full century of golf design in America, in reaction to more players, longer golf shots, and of course, more lawyers and lawsuits.  Courses were once set on 100 acres, where 200 or so are required today.  One reason is that tees and greens are spaced further apart – about 200 feet center to center, and fairway center lines are too.  Once, 200 feet center to center was very typical, but now, 250 or even 300 feet between centerlines is common.  And, if that means taking out some trees, well, sometimes that’s necessary.

In the next installment, we’ll talk about how we accomplish this in general, and specifically at an unnatural, man made (or disturbed) site like the quarry at Giants Ridge.


Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The process of designing a golf course
« Reply #11 on: August 23, 2010, 09:59:32 AM »
This one covers the routing of FireKeeper in KS


“Foot Prints in the Clay (Routing a Golf Course)


On New Year’s Eve 2008, a few weeks after securing the design commission, I went on yet another site walk to finalize the routing, this time in sub zero weather!  Both the cold and the knowledge that I would be embarking on a new golf course design were exhilarating!
While I had prepared a routing for the sales presentation, this time I knew the routing was for real and I was armed with the knowledge that I was needed to meet Federal environmental requirements of “zero wetlands impacts” for construction to proceed immediately, which was forcing some changes from the sales routings.
Locating the clubhouse site was the first step, as it must have room for parking, cart storage and staging, and practice areas.  Our site is an “L” shape, comprised of six 40 acre quarter sections, with three prominent ridges, including one in the center, and a large creek valley running to the southeast corner. 

One logical clubhouse location was across the road from the casino, right on the highway to reduce costs.  But, using the center ridge near the crotch of the L provided for a centralized clubhouse that allowed returning nines and avoided opening and closing holes to play into a low sun.  I had to move the range from the sales plan, because it crossed a creek.  I found that placing the range on that main ridge, which didn’t look promising on plan, actually looked great on the ground, and it didn’t require any creek impacts or tree removal.
 
Eventually, we used that upper portion of that ridge for tee and green sites, moving the clubhouse halfway back down the hill to a tree lined meadow to create its own internal views.  The clubhouse is far enough off the road for serenity, but is close enough to reduce entry road and utility connection costs.  It could have better visual control of opening and closing holes. 
With that set, I began the final routing the course, using many holes I had considered in earlier versions of the sales routing.  My first rule of routing is simply fit the best and natural18 holes on the property.  My second rule is that if a routing works out well after just one try, it probably has 17 or 19 holes, rather than the required 18!  In fact, I found natural holes in abundance and actually had more trouble connecting good holes than I did finding them.
Routing sets an eternal footprint, creating the most charming golf holes and efficient circulation (i.e., easy walking) while minimizing earthmoving.  We have moved less than 100,000 cubic yards of earth (about 1/10 to 1/3 of typical modern courses) which is a sign that I found an abundance of natural holes. Only holes 3, 4 and 11 required cutting through ridges for visibility and I reduced the cut on 4 by accepting a blind tee shot over a deep hazard, reminiscent of the famous 4th at Royal St. George in England.  I had always wanted to build a hole like that!
Our site is has three distinct visual zones – agriculture to the west, heavy trees center, and a mixture of pastures with random tree lines to the east.  Our routing starts in the trees to create a good impression, runs through the agriculture land, and then weaves back into the treed areas on the back nine giving golfers a mixture of experiences, and building to a strong finish.
While I consider what holes will look like in the routing plan, it’s only after we finish a routing that I detail out each hole design, which we will cover next month.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The process of designing a golf course
« Reply #12 on: August 23, 2010, 10:02:03 AM »
And lastly, some thoughts on re-routing existing courses in a remodel.......





As we have discussed in earlier columns, the first thing a club looking at renovations must decide – in conjunction with deciding on theme – is whether substantial re-routing of the golf course is feasible, necessary and/or practical.  Based on my experience, I would say the answer is usually “No.” in most situations. 

To start with, most members at most clubs love their course, often ranking it unrealistically high in quality, because they have many good memories of the course!  If they didn’t, it’s unlikely that they would have played there as much as they did.  These good memories usually stem in equal parts to friendships made, great individual shots, or competitions – friendly or formal – won.  These feelings have more to do with other issues than actual design quality, but they are real feelings, nonetheless. 

Members may simply fee more comfortable with the status quo over unknown big changes a major renovation.  They may believe (rightly) that major re-routings cost more money, which they are naturally averse to spending.  They may also worry about trees being taken down, and the course being out of commission for longer than “necessary.”

Not long ago, five architects interviewed for a renovation at an old club that insisted they wanted to reroute extensively to get much needed length.  The architect who won the interview was the sole candidate who went against the grain – stating that the big changes would reduce the character of the course than any additional length would add.  I go into most renovations expecting club members to have a predisposition against major re-routing of the golf course – and wished I had stuck to that theory in the interview! 

Usually, the cost – or more accurately, the cost/benefit ratio, is my objection as a Golf Course Architect to major re-routings, too!  I always advise a club to do a cost/benefit analysis before considering a major re-routing.  What do they hope to achieve as benefits? 

In many cases, re-routing is absolutely necessary because of land loss (or gain) due to highway expansion, ability to sell land for housing, etc.  In other cases, clubs want to pursue re-routing to add length, get rid of a long standing unsafe situation, or perhaps even blow up a wildly unpopular hole.  (That’s one that is tough to play either by a majority of the members or by the current greens chairman …….)

In these cases, re-routing can be justified, because it represents a vast improvement to the course.  In the case of a safety problem, the costs can be quantified fairly precisely – would a lawsuit cost us more than the cost of rebuilding several holes.  If the answer is yes, then you should proceed! 

Other justifications for re-routing are harder to quantify.  Unless you have dozens or existing members clamoring for additional length, or dozens of survey cards from prospective members, or several magazine reviews saying “It would be a top ten course in the state, if only it were longer,” then I would seriously question whether major changes are in order. 

The problem lies in the fact that not all golfers really need the extra length, or will appreciate it.  It’s fairly typical that the best players will appreciate it, and then, the question becomes, “Do we spend a bazillion dollars to improve the course for our half dozen low handicappers?”  For the answer to that, reread my column on club politics!  Or, assess just what percentage of your existing – or proposed -membership fits the category, and decide based on that.  Sometimes, the need to attract “young blood” is paramount, and distance is an issue.  Of course, future members won’t remember the course in its “good old days” but it’s difficult to tear up the course that s many current members love for an unknown entity!

The cost side of the equation usually determines whether or not a re-routing is justified.  The general rule of thumb is that it is much less expensive to rebuild the course in place than it is to reroute it.

The reason is that your course has a lot of infrastructure that is very expensive to replace.  Typical among these are truly irreplaceable mature trees (plus the cost of clearing new hole corridors at up to $ 20,000 per hole), irrigation systems (especially if relatively new - $50,000 - $75,000 per hole) drainage (about $10,000 per hole) cart paths (about $30,000 per hole), and turf (about $50,000 per hole, if sodded), etc. 

Greens cost about $50,000 each, and tees and bunkers are relative bargains at $10,000 -$15,000 each, so the cost of re-routing a golf course goes up faster than dry prairie grass with a match when you start re-routing.  In essence, it is the cost of a new course.  If a hole is basically good, why spend over $200,000 per hole to build a new hole, when you can spend about $100,000 to improve the existing one?

We recently worked through just such a discussion.  In this case, a 3 year old irrigation system and many 20 to 100 year old trees truly eliminated re-routing from the master plan equation almost immediately.  They had a great course that needs some “tweaks” but no one could justify rebuilding the irrigation or removing the trees to pick up a few hundred yards of length.  They are considering “re-positioning” a few tees and greens, while leaving the fairway corridors exactly the same.  That is usually a cost effective way to add a bit of length and can often solve some other problems.

I think some members start looking at their course like a challenger to an incumbent – an apt analogy during this election year!  It’s easy to start picking on the perceived problems of a course, but it’s also wise to remember that it must have some good qualities if it has lasted long enough to require some renovations!  It’s also good to remember that almost any golfer is partly a frustrated golf course architect.  In so many cases, the proposed changes are either limited in appeal to a small group of golfers, or don’t provide such compelling upgrades that they are worth pursuing.

Of course, there are always exceptions, but in the club renovation arena, you are not allowed to make that mistake once…….so tread carefully before blowing up a perfectly good golf course.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Melvyn Morrow

Re: The process of designing a golf course
« Reply #13 on: August 23, 2010, 10:08:21 AM »


Jeff

So you really have nothing much to say on the subject then ;)

Melvyn

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The process of designing a golf course
« Reply #14 on: August 23, 2010, 11:13:15 AM »
Another post from Jeff that have been printed and put in my files.  Great stuff!  Thanks! 
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The process of designing a golf course
« Reply #15 on: August 23, 2010, 01:41:17 PM »
Jeff

So you really have nothing much to say on the subject then

Melvyn


Melvyn,

First TMac and now you both show you have been hiding a pithy sense of humor......who knew? ;D

I suppose when I die, they will work the phrase "wordy bastard" on my tombstone....unless TePaul happens to grab the exclusive on it first!
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The process of designing a golf course
« Reply #16 on: August 23, 2010, 02:12:01 PM »
Jeff...

in post #9 you say that there are “off limits” environmental zones, such as wetlands, high quality forests, historic sites, sensitive habitats, and other legally protected areas which can't be built on.

Totally hypothetically, let's say I own 2,000 acres in rurual GA...totally private property, sprawling acreage, no roads, businesses or anything...100% private.

Will I still have "off limits" areas or can I build whatever I want, where ever I want since I own it completely?
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Mike Nuzzo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The process of designing a golf course
« Reply #17 on: August 23, 2010, 05:27:59 PM »
Mac
If the Oconee river was passing through your property there would be a lot of unhappy people if you damned it.
Just like some would like to know about the Ivory Billed Woodpecker you found on your property.
Cheers
Thinking of Bob, Rihc, Bill, George, Neil & Tiger.

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The process of designing a golf course
« Reply #18 on: August 23, 2010, 05:37:16 PM »
Got it!
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Melvyn Morrow

Re: The process of designing a golf course
« Reply #19 on: August 23, 2010, 06:12:25 PM »

Jeff

I have a great sense of humour if you do not mind, after all I am still here. Not sure about pithy though.  You will never beat TEPaul, he needs a page to say Hi, but of course it will be left open to debate if he actually meant it.

Mac

Remember the first thing you need is “Land Fit for Purpose” without that you may encounter on-going problems, unless you have an endless amounts of money – ops that stopped when the banks screwed us all a couple of years ago. So we perhaps need to build courses within a sensible budget which I believe starts again on the very basic requirement “Land Fit for Purpose”. Don’t get out of bounds due to lack of budget could get more than a little rough..

I was always taught to build on solid foundations, still think that’s good advice.

Melvyn 


Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The process of designing a golf course
« Reply #20 on: August 23, 2010, 06:22:11 PM »
Melvyn,

Since this started with a HHW quote, wasn't it he who said I need 500 words to clear my throat?
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back