[Garland Bayley]

Mac:

The natural pasture grasses that are on site at Dismal River are a bit coarse for turning into good fairways.

We are trying to decide whether to mow them down on some holes and just slit-seed into them, or whether we have to kill the existing grasses and reduce them to dirt so we can smooth out a lot of the little pockets in the ground from years of cattle grazing etc.  I'm not talking about smoothing the big contours here, just eliminating pockmarks the size of a silver dollar (or a computer mouse) that would make it hard to achieve tight turf without years of topdressing and overseeding. 

That's the same dilemma that Askernish faces, and they are about the only course in the last 50 years to take the long and slow approach to fixing the problem, mostly because they didn't have the money to do it the other way.  The down side is that it takes years before you can present your best face to potential customers, and the market makes judgments much too quickly for that.

Perhaps the problem is that we have it all wrong when it comes to creating new golf courses.

Suppose Bandon Dunes did not exist. Suppose the city of Bandon decided that putting in a golf course as a fire break would be a good thing. Suppose they got a talented router to provide a routing on the land for the fire break, and they simply went through the slow process of "slit-seeding" and growing in slowly. Wouldn't they have a fine golf course that the locals could play for a small fee? Wouldn't it improve with age? Wouldn't the word get out that there was something great at Bandon? Wouldn't it be possible that eventually you would have a great golf boom in the Bandon area that would seem more great courses? Isn't this pretty similar to how we got the great courses in GB&I?

So Tom, when are you going to offer the routing services package to your companies offerings?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Tom

Well said, that was one of the points I had hoped would be raised, Designed (to a point) and Built by the players, keeping  those who seem to know or care little for our game well and truly out of the loop. Its only one, but a major lesson that world golf should learn IMHO from Askernish

It’s one of the most important lessons coming out of Askernish and I hope it might sink into the heads of these Developers that Golf comes first, the add-ons are just that ADD-ONs but up to now seems to control the standard of the course – a tail wadding the dog, that sort of farce.

Melvyn

[Tom_Doak]

Suppose Bandon Dunes did not exist. Suppose the city of Bandon decided that putting in a golf course as a fire break would be a good thing. Suppose they got a talented router to provide a routing on the land for the fire break, and they simply went through the slow process of "slit-seeding" and growing in slowly. Wouldn't they have a fine golf course that the locals could play for a small fee? Wouldn't it improve with age? Wouldn't the word get out that there was something great at Bandon? Wouldn't it be possible that eventually you would have a great golf boom in the Bandon area that would seem more great courses? Isn't this pretty similar to how we got the great courses in GB&I?

Garland:

This is pure fantasy.  That ground sat there idle for years upon years, under different ownership.  The town never showed any interest in buying it and developing it.  And to actually develop the course would have required the land purchase, the irrigation system, and the commitment to maintenance that Mr. Keiser made.

A town is never going to make such a commitment in this day and age, on its own.  Many towns don't even have enough money to provide basic services they have promised for our taxes, or to pay the benefits packages promised to town employees.  And Bandon was way too small to make Bandon Dunes work as a local muni.  They needed the outside play, which required the maintenance levels and the hotel and all the rest.

Funnily enough, the one project I've done which took the approach you suggest is The Sheep Ranch.  It has stayed under the radar by design, but even if it hadn't, I can't imagine it would have transformed the town.  And while we spent less than half a million building what's there ... the property cost $3 million I believe.  So again, that's not an investment any towns today are going to make.

[Garland Bayley]

Suppose Bandon Dunes did not exist. Suppose the city of Bandon decided that putting in a golf course as a fire break would be a good thing. Suppose they got a talented router to provide a routing on the land for the fire break, and they simply went through the slow process of "slit-seeding" and growing in slowly. Wouldn't they have a fine golf course that the locals could play for a small fee? Wouldn't it improve with age? Wouldn't the word get out that there was something great at Bandon? Wouldn't it be possible that eventually you would have a great golf boom in the Bandon area that would seem more great courses? Isn't this pretty similar to how we got the great courses in GB&I?

Garland:

This is pure fantasy.  That ground sat there idle for years upon years, under different ownership.  The town never showed any interest in buying it and developing it.  And to actually develop the course would have required the land purchase, the irrigation system, and the commitment to maintenance that Mr. Keiser made.

A town is never going to make such a commitment in this day and age, on its own.  Many towns don't even have enough money to provide basic services they have promised for our taxes, or to pay the benefits packages promised to town employees.  And Bandon was way too small to make Bandon Dunes work as a local muni.  They needed the outside play, which required the maintenance levels and the hotel and all the rest.

Funnily enough, the one project I've done which took the approach you suggest is The Sheep Ranch.  It has stayed under the radar by design, but even if it hadn't, I can't imagine it would have transformed the town.  And while we spent less than half a million building what's there ... the property cost $3 million I believe.  So again, that's not an investment any towns today are going to make.

Most people thought Mr. Keiser was engaging in pure fantasy too.

[Niall C]

I have to say that I completely disagree, in respect of Machrihanish Dunes, Jeff. There is no way that property - which is a Site of Special Scientific Interest, and heavily protected, like virtually every remaining dune system in the UK (and Europe for that matter) - was going to be permitted for golf course construction in the normal fashion. It's true that Trump got his permission on another protected dune system, but he did so because of his own high profile and by blinding the politicians with the supposed amount of investment he was putting in the area.

There are lots of beautiful duneland properties around the British Isles and northern Europe, and it's hard not to see the potential for golf in them. If there's ever to be more golf built on these sites, it will have to be done alongside the environmental lobby, not in conflict with it. And that means embracing a lower impact model of construction.

A hundred years ago, how would our forefathers have built a golf course on a property like that? They would have refined it, bit by bit, over many seasons, improving the turf, changing the layout as they went. Maybe, for these special properties, if we were more prepared to think the same way, we would get somewhere?

I would like to see more links golf built, and I think that's the only way it will happen.

Adam:

That's an interesting take.  However, I do question whether the strict definition of "low-impact" applied to Machrihanish Dunes [no soil disturbance except for 7 acres of greens] is really necessary?  If we take the other approach at Dismal River, and all we do is to expose the soil and do finish work and re-seed it, is that really so different environmentally -- especially if your definition of what's good for the environment is the same 100-year horizon you just suggested?

The one thing I can say is that while many golf course architects would love to work on a project like Machrihanish Dunes or Askernish -- assuming there's enough money in it to pay them -- not many golf course DEVELOPERS would dare take on such a project.  Perhaps the key facet of Askernish is that nobody was trying to make any money off it, and it was developed by and for the locals.  That's so rare in this day and age, I can't even think of another example.

Coming back to this thread I read Adams excellent posts and Tom equally excellent responses. Adam is so right baout the potential of the remaining dunescapes around northern europe and how they COULD be developed as golf courses. The way he describes is the low key, not for profit method used in olden days. Hard to see how that model can work where you get a group of enthusiasts putting in time and money to get a rudimentary course up and running, and one that may take years to properly come into its own.

I wonder if a middle way would be possible, working with the environmentalists in a more constructive fashion. Or has that gone out the window following Trump riding roughshod over the environmental lobby in Aberdeen ?

Niall

[Niall C]

I think, though I wouldn't 100 per cent swear to it, that the same applied at Machrihanish Dunes, although in their case the issue was not cash but regulation. If I remember correctly, only tees, greens and surrounds were fully seeded, the rest was mow-out and overseed.

Adam,

If what you say is right, that must have been interesting ground to mow out because I know for a fact that up until a short while before construction of Mach Dunes, the site was used for grazing cows. I've got to think they would have had a lot more than the odd computer mouse size whole in the ground that Tom refers to in his other post.

Niall

[Kris Shreiner]

While I wasn't there for the entire project, I followed it closely and walked the ground for several days in May'08, when the course was about 75% of the way finished. The ground was very rough in spots, though significant areas had excellent turf. Numerous cattle trails, thousands of rabbit holes, and the like all were in evidence, though often not directly in main areas of play.

There are some marked differences between Askernish, MD and the Trumposity Course. The rare plants are the main concern that heightened the restrictive nature of options during construction at MD. There were also some low areas at the MD site, that held water for significant periods, having almost a a meadow-like quality to them that were off-limits. Trump's land has more exposed sands in dune systems than MD, and while unique, couldn't be defended as easily environmentally, especially withThe Donald's influence and the purported economic attractiveness some embraced.


Additionally, MD is new, from scratch, with even tighter constraints than anything out there. MD was created as a profit-driver for hotel and real estate ventures, while Askernish has been more organic in having the wonderful support of those that have given significantly, of their time or resources, to continue a noble endeavor of local origins.

That said, the Machrihanish Dunes project should be lauded and studied as a model for collaborative, environmentally responsible course development. Certainly other architects have taken a similar approach, but MD's restrictions would have frustrated all but the most persistent archies. It nearly drove those that succeeded in pulling it off batty!

Sadly, it has not gotten its due to the degree it should have, mostly due to missed opportunties to deliver the presentation properly for what it is and could become, rather than sounding the trumpets and then have partakers dissatisfied with the experience.

I hope both Askernish, Machrihanish Dunes, and other projects having their qualities become more prevalent in the coming years. The game, and golf's acceptance as a good steward by non-golfers, would benefit greatly from taking such a course.

Cheers,
Kris

[Niall C]

Kris

Not sure I can agree with you that developing Balmedie was less questionable than developing Mach Dunes. I would ahve thought that it would be the other way round. Balmedie is (was ?) a more scarce and sensitive environment than Mach Dunes. By its very nature, ie. shifting sand system, any turfing or stabilisation would destroy whats there. At Mach Dunes, you just need to stop cutting the grass and you are more or less back to where you are.

Niall

[Melvyn Morrow]

I agree with Niall, if we look to the records we will note that very few courses are laid down upon thiese sands. look further north and we find Newburgh Links (see course map of 1896). The only other course was further north still at Collieston. South we get Muscar at Aberdeen. Now if the old timers did not build on this site we should take note and wonder why. But if the attatude is that money can resolve all difficulties then we have lost before we have begun.

Newburgh links

The new at Balmedie


Niall I feel is spot on regards Balmedie IHMO, confirmed I believe by history and the lack of another course on any of these Links.

Melvyn  
 

[Kris Shreiner]

Niall and Melvyn,

Are we even bothering to read what I write? Trump's influence peddling is stated in the same sentence as to why this got approved.
It should NEVER have been permitted, I agree. No question, just on the scale of escavation and disturbance alone, it has far more disruptive influence than MD would ever have on its respective ground.

The wasteland nature of Trumposity also is easy to dismiss...it's just a bunch of sand don't you know. Trump has even had the audacity to says his efforts will improve on what nature had there! Endangered plants also usually have made a better case for protection than sandy areas.

MD worked IN COOPERATION with environmental professionals to RETAIN significantly what was there; conversly
Mr. Trump has not had that element and the sparse turf at Trump's site is even more reason it was land that should have been left alone. MD's ground has far better natural compatibility for golf than Trump's.

The challenges of Trump's site, and ground like it, are the main reasons it hsan't previously been attempted in those areas. There was simply better ground on offer, requiring less work to get golf links established, in earlier years. It's a different day, though I think Scots, like America and many other nations, have become a bit more susceptible to the snake oil of "jobs and growth" projects more so than the past.

Cheers,
Kris

[Niall C]

"Trump's land has more exposed sands in dune systems than MD, and while unique, couldn't be defended as easily environmentally, especially withThe Donald's influence and the purported economic attractiveness some embraced."

Yes Kris, I did read what you wrote and responded accordingly. The above is a direct quote from your post. You state clearly that Balmedie couldn't be defended as easily as Machrihanish on environmental grounds which was what I disagreed with. The fact that you added to that statement that the environmentalists were onto EVEN more of a loser at Balmedie because of Trumps influence is neither hear nor there, you clearly stated that Mach Dunes had a stronger environmental case than Balmedie.

Suggest that you might want to read what you write in future before jumping down anyones throat for (politely disagreeing) with you. Just my humble opinion.

Niall

[Kris Shreiner]

Niall,

My question was hardly jumping down your throat. There are a number of other dunes systems in Scotland similar to Trump's ground, though that land is rather special. MD has plant species that grow almost nowhere else or nowhere else. MD got approved PRIMARILY because they agreed to work under the strictest cooperation EVER undertaken with any project I've heard about, or seen, anywhere in the world. One can debate on a hundred points as to what SSSI of the two has more "value", but on critical or rare species, it's a no contest. Those critera typically hold the most importance, along with the water-related issues, which MD also had greater sensitivity issues with than Trump's ground.

What is being allowed at Trump's site shows very little regard for what's there and the extensive, heavy equipment disturbance is further evidence no one else is too concerned about it either; again, every attempt possible to minimize impacts on the MD site was adhered to with DIRECT oversite by scientic professionals. That's why, in my view, and the evidence is rather compelling, despite a more critically sensitive site from rare or endangered plant species perspective than Trump's sandlands, permission was given for the MD project.

I respect your opinion and anyone else's. It didn't seem as if your or Melvyn's responses took what I wrote into account, and that is what I questioned. Nuff said.

Cheers,
Kris

[Niall C]

Nuff said ? Well actually Kris, I don't think so. When you basically start a post by questioning whether someone had bothered ie. couldn't be arsed, to read your post then I think that's jumping down there throat.

But anyway, back to the main point, which of the two is more environmentally sensitive. I guess its a wee bit like comparing apples to oranges after all at the Menie Links (Balmedie) you have a very rare landform with only a handful of such single sand sheets in the UK of which, according to Scottish Natural Heritage, is nationally and probably internationally unique on account of the scale and the dynamism of the sand sheet which covers much of the links. At Machrihanish you have, again according to SNH, a rare pyramidal orchid where MD is the only place it is found in the whole of Kintyre. Not quite on the same scale I woulsd suggest. Machrihanish also needs to be actively managed whereas Menie should have been left alone, and for that reason alone, the environmental argument for protecting Menie was far more compelling IMHO.

Nuff said ?

Niall 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()