What do you think of this classic public course's new Master Plan? (Wilmette GC)

[PCCraig]

I worked at Wilmette Golf Club in Wilmette, IL, just north of the Chicago for years through high school and part of college and have really fond memories of the course, even though admittedly it's not much to speak about in it's current form. I just learned of that a local golf course architect has completed a pretty extensive "Master Plan." Perhaps I'm having trouble being impartial, but I was curious what others think of the plan and the work they are planning on doing? 

http://www.wilmettepark.org/userfiles/Wilmette%20Golf%20Club%20Master%20Plan-final.pdf

*I'm incapable of doing so, but are there any tech savvy posters that could upload a current areal and the master plan next to each other on this thread?

[Steve_ Shaffer]

I skimmed through the Master Plan and don't recall that original GCA- Joseph Roseman in 1922- was ever mentioned. What other work did he do?

Good article on Greg Martin:


http://beaconnews.suntimes.com/sports/5171964-419/golf-architect-greg-martin-has-made-his-mark-at-several-local-courses.html

Here is his website:

http://www.mdpltd.com/

[Mike Nuzzo]

Pat
What are you questioning?
What don't you like?
Hard to tell much from 2 photos of bad (design) greens with bath tubs in the middle.
Chicago is expensive, and if you do a little research you can see what Don and I spent building a new golf course...
Cheers

[Phil McDade]

Pat:

Martin has designed two pretty well-received courses here in southern Wisconsin -- the Oaks (not far from my home, and my high school's home course), which was a top-10 new affordable course for Golf Digest several years ago, and Glen Erin, near Janesville. Both have solid greens and good bunkering -- two issues that the master plan gets at for Wilmette. For what it's worth, he's also largely credited with the improvements at Rich Harvest Farms, the "self-designed" course near Chicago that hosted the Solheim Cup not long ago. Here's a thread on Glen Erin:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,39725.0.html

[Garland Bayley]

Adding a fairway bunker on the outside of #1 is good for generating more design fee, but not much else. Adding a bunker on the inside of the dogleg would make sense.

Converting from free form tees to defined tees makes on think he doesn't do free form tees, so they will be done away with.

Have no idea why #2 needs to be moved about so.

After adding a bunker of little value on #1, why is he removing one on #3. More work/design fees?

[Garland Bayley]

#5 Remove a bunker, add a bunker? What's the point? How much traffic will a bunker behind the green get?  It seems the bunker he is removing is the one that would be challenging the better player on his placement for the approach.

[Garland Bayley]

#6 Add yet another fairway bunker on the outside of a dogleg "to define the corner". His intro says he wishes to improve strategy. What is his idea of improving strategy? Pushing people to play the line of instinct?

#7 He want to help the high handicapper, but yet here he wants to border the green with the pond. I am beginning to think he either doesn't know what he is doing, or he knows he can say all the right things, and expect no one to know he isn't doing any of it. If you want to help the high handicapper, drain the pond!

[Garland Bayley]

#8 Add fairway bunkers, remove greenside bunker.      Not only that, pinch the fairway landing area with the new fairway bunkers. How RTJy! How dark agesy! 

OBTW

Yes I am having fun.

[Garland Bayley]

#9 "Add fairway bunker ... to define right-side" Anytime I read a master plan where the GCA is doing things "to define" things, I think they are primarily adding definition to their bank account. So far (unless I overlooked) he has not claimed to add or delete something for strategic purposes.

#11 Picture shows what looks like a straight hole. He adds a bunker "at the corner". He enlarges the pond. What happened to his sympathy for the high handicapper.

[Garland Bayley]

Wow! 4 million. Get them to talk to Nuzzo promptly.
Or, of course Ian Andrew, or any one of a number on this site that can do a better job for much less.

[David Egan]

Adding a fairway bunker on the outside of #1 is good for generating more design fee, but not much else. Adding a bunker on the inside of the dogleg would make sense.

Converting from free form tees to defined tees makes on think he doesn't do free form tees, so they will be done away with.

Have no idea why #2 needs to be moved about so.

After adding a bunker of little value on #1, why is he removing one on #3. More work/design fees?

That bunker on #1 will come into play all the time and make the hole more difficult. As it is now, with the driving range on the right and nothing on the left, the only sensible thing to do is bang it out as far as possible down the left side and have an easy pitch shot to the green. That bunker will make the tee shot more challenging or at least force players to think about hitting a cut and bringing the death on the right into play or hit it shorter off the tee and have a more difficult second shot.

[David Egan]

#5 Remove a bunker, add a bunker? What's the point? How much traffic will a bunker behind the green get?  It seems the bunker he is removing is the one that would be challenging the better player on his placement for the approach.

The fairway bunkers on #5 are already there they are just being renovated and moved to account for the distances people hit it these days.

[David Egan]

#6 Add yet another fairway bunker on the outside of a dogleg "to define the corner". His intro says he wishes to improve strategy. What is his idea of improving strategy? Pushing people to play the line of instinct?

#7 He want to help the high handicapper, but yet here he wants to border the green with the pond. I am beginning to think he either doesn't know what he is doing, or he knows he can say all the right things, and expect no one to know he isn't doing any of it. If you want to help the high handicapper, drain the pond!

Again, the bunker on #6 makes some sense and will make the tee shot more challenging.  Like on #1, the play now is just hit it as far as you can down the left side so you can stay out of the huge ditch that runs along the right side.  The bunker will force one to flirt with the right side if he wants to have a chance to hit the green in two. Now, you just hit it left and either have a look at the green or a simple layup.

The pond is already there on #7 and is probably a detention pond that has to be there.  Anyway, it's a pretty good hole already and it doesn't look like he's doing much to it.

[David Egan]

#9 "Add fairway bunker ... to define right-side" Anytime I read a master plan where the GCA is doing things "to define" things, I think they are primarily adding definition to their bank account. So far (unless I overlooked) he has not claimed to add or delete something for strategic purposes.

#11 Picture shows what looks like a straight hole. He adds a bunker "at the corner". He enlarges the pond. What happened to his sympathy for the high handicapper.

I agree with you on #11. I don't see the point of that bunker.

[Mark Johnson]

wow...

played wilmette a bunch when i lived in chicago.   Completely agree that drainage was a major issue.   Though I like a few of the changes (the bunker on 18, the new tee on 11 and moving the tee on 2), most specifically moving the tee on 2, i dont think it justifies the fee or shutting down the course for a year.

[Mike Bowline]

wow...

played wilmette a bunch when i lived in chicago.   Completely agree that drainage was a major issue.   Though I like a few of the changes (the bunker on 18, the new tee on 11 and moving the tee on 2), most specifically moving the tee on 2, i dont think it justifies the fee or shutting down the course for a year.

I agree: drainage can be fixed without shutting the course down. I have fond memories of a few rounds here while I lived in Milwaukee. The changes do not look like they are worth the shutdown nor the expense.

[Paul OConnor]

Apparently, nearly every hole will require a little bit of the "Expand, organize and rebuild tees." treatment.
 
$4.0 million bucks to redo Wilmette Golf Course?  Are you kidding? What is the payback on this boondoggle? The end result will be pretty much the same same shitty course with the same bunch of old retired farts playing heavily subsidized 5 hour rounds.  Maybe since the last pro was ripping the place off, they needed a distraction.

As big a bunch of suckers as the residents are, they will probably agree.  There are very few municipal projects that Wilmette residents won't support. 

-Skate park so the stoner kids will have someplace to hang out
-Possible takeover of Gillson Park marina.
-Bought vacant property in downtown so the developer won't sue them.
-Something with Mallincrodt, I forgot, but Village got the pipe as usual.

Imagine this proposal at any private club right now.  How many club memberships would vote to spend their own money to marginally upgrade their shitty course, FOR FOUR MILLION DOLLARS!!    Crazy.

[Garland Bayley]

#5 Remove a bunker, add a bunker? What's the point? How much traffic will a bunker behind the green get?  It seems the bunker he is removing is the one that would be challenging the better player on his placement for the approach.

The fairway bunkers on #5 are already there they are just being renovated and moved to account for the distances people hit it these days.

Between my bad eyesight, and the poor quality of the pdf, I read rennovate as remove. So I thought they were removing the right bunker and then adding a bunker behind the green. My mistake. But the question why a bunker behind the green still stands.

[Garland Bayley]

Adding a fairway bunker on the outside of #1 is good for generating more design fee, but not much else. Adding a bunker on the inside of the dogleg would make sense.

Converting from free form tees to defined tees makes on think he doesn't do free form tees, so they will be done away with.

Have no idea why #2 needs to be moved about so.

After adding a bunker of little value on #1, why is he removing one on #3. More work/design fees?

That bunker on #1 will come into play all the time and make the hole more difficult. As it is now, with the driving range on the right and nothing on the left, the only sensible thing to do is bang it out as far as possible down the left side and have an easy pitch shot to the green. That bunker will make the tee shot more challenging or at least force players to think about hitting a cut and bringing the death on the right into play or hit it shorter off the tee and have a more difficult second shot.

Don't know how you know there is a driving range on the right. Looking at the drawing I would be trying for the right side for the wide open green entrance. The farther left you push the drive, the more the left greenside bunker would come into play. But, it is a pretty short hole, so I guess you are advocating hit it long, hit it high strategy.

[Garland Bayley]

#6 Add yet another fairway bunker on the outside of a dogleg "to define the corner". His intro says he wishes to improve strategy. What is his idea of improving strategy? Pushing people to play the line of instinct?

#7 He want to help the high handicapper, but yet here he wants to border the green with the pond. I am beginning to think he either doesn't know what he is doing, or he knows he can say all the right things, and expect no one to know he isn't doing any of it. If you want to help the high handicapper, drain the pond!

Again, the bunker on #6 makes some sense and will make the tee shot more challenging.  Like on #1, the play now is just hit it as far as you can down the left side so you can stay out of the huge ditch that runs along the right side. 

Boy, you have better eyes than I do. Something tells me you know the course.

The bunker will force one to flirt with the right side if he wants to have a chance to hit the green in two. Now, you just hit it left and either have a look at the green or a simple layup.

The pond is already there on #7 and is probably a detention pond that has to be there.  Anyway, it's a pretty good hole already and it doesn't look like he's doing much to it.

He says he is expanding the green towards it. For high handicappers he should expand the green away from it.

[Garland Bayley]

Adding a fairway bunker on the outside of #1 is good for generating more design fee, but not much else. Adding a bunker on the inside of the dogleg would make sense.

Converting from free form tees to defined tees makes on think he doesn't do free form tees, so they will be done away with.

Have no idea why #2 needs to be moved about so.

After adding a bunker of little value on #1, why is he removing one on #3. More work/design fees?

Garland,

How many times have you played Wilmette CC?

The same number of times Ran has on the courses he comments on without playing them. Don't tell me you are Mucci fetish follower.

[Ron Farris]

Just a guess, but there might be a few hungry contractors who might be able to crunch those number, but that is just a guess.

[PCCraig]

I apologize for my quick post yesterday afternoon, giving little back story into the course. So hopefully the following information helps.

Wilmette Golf Club was originally built as a public course in the early 1920's. At one early point, 9 holes were lighted, making it the first lighted golf course in the world. It later was purchased by nearby Northwestern, who owned the course for 30+ years before selling the course to the local park district in 1972. Originally designed by Joseph Roseman (other courses around Chicago include Green Acres. Barrington Hills, Crystal Lake, Waveland, Wilmette, Westmoreland, Glenview, and the Glenview Naval Base courses, which are now The Glen Club) it had been worked on in pieces for years, mostly adding or subtracting bunkers and redoing the original greens. The course gets a TON of play, probably close to 40,000 rounds a year, thanks to it being one of the closest public 18 hole courses to the City of Chicago and it's location right off the Edens. Wilmette, IL is a pretty affluent town.

The course itself is pretty much dead flat and half of the course sits effectively in the North Branch of the Chicago River's plain, and is bordered on two sides by a forest preserve. The site is small, maybe 100 acres, and is now covered in trees. The soil is pretty terrible for golf and mostly consists of clay. 

Here is a historical aerial (from Dan Moore http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,28359.0.html ):


And here is the course in 2007:


Here is a hole by hole description that I posted back in 2007:

#1- The new starting hole used to be a bit of a filler hole, but it could be a better starting hole because it is a lot easier than the now tenth. The only real trouble on the hole is the out of bounds driving range on the right side of the hole. For the most part it is a 3-wood/8-Iron to an elevated green sided with two huge bunkers on the left and right.

#2- A middle length par 3 was lengthened by about 20 yards in the 1999 updating. There is now a small tee box guarded by evergreens and backed up against the ninth tee. This hole otherwise has been unchanged for years and features an original green. The green is fronted with a big bunker in front (and road) and features a tough up and down if you miss the green.

#3- A hole much like #1 where the big trouble is trying not to slice it onto the range. There is a good bunker about 250 away from the tee and large trees down the left side of the fairway that urge you to aim at the left egde of the bunker. The green is almost the exact same as #1.

#4- This hole features the most insane placement of a new teebox in the history of golf. In 1999 they added a new back tee---behind a series of elm trees which in order to miss you had to tee the ball on the far left side of the box, as well as hit an extreme cut over the 12th green. The only real landing area for a driver is the bunker in the fairway. It's too bad because the green on this hole is one of the better on the course, subtle and original it is only guarded by a small bunker on the left. The green has a large hump directly in the middle, making shots to the right side of the green a must. During warm winters with no snow, we would putt and practice on this hole. (They only cover the newer greens durring winter, which may explain the aerial.)

#5- This hole has been fooled around with a bunch since 1999, which I, like Shivas, agree was far far better to begin with. It used to have a really hard green, which was much more interesting than the now flat green. It has always been close to a driver/wedge hole, and the old green was a much harder shot to hit close, you had to actually favor the right side of the hole and flirt with the trees in order to get a semi striaght shot at the pin. Now its mostly bang it long left of the green and chip up. They added length to the hole by using the old #16 teebox which didn't accomplish much.

#6- A longer dogleg right par-5 which hugs the forest preserve on the right was mangled a bit in 1999. The actual dogleg point used to be home to a series of three very large Willow trees, which apparently too many people were hitting into and slowing play. So they cut the first two down to speed up play, they also split the larger fairway bunker into two smaller ones. The old trees used to make you actually hit away from the dogleg, in order for you to have a shot at getting further down the fairway. This green is also an original and is pretty neat. OB close right, long, and left. And a large hump in the front of the green that makes a front center pin brutal.

#7- Another medium par-3 that was gutted by Nugent in the 80's I believe. The green used to sit on top of a small hill/mound. Now it is half over water, but considering the pin is never on the left side of the hole no one has ever hit directly over the water. The green actually is not bad, with a HUGE, not subtle hump in the middle. Big mounds in the back make long shots hard up and downs.

#8- Redone in 1999 along with #5, the two greens back into the same complex. This isn't the hardest hole in the world, you pretty much hit a driver over the low trees on the right and go from there. The green was moved over left of the semi existant bunker. To make room for a new tee on #9. They planted about 40 3 foot high evergreens on the left side of the hole ontop of mounds. They gobble up hooks pretty quickly.

#9- Huge bunker in the left center of the fairway completly rules the hole. Even if you try to hit it over there really is no point because the hole is almost all rough and trees. This green is also an original and features two neat bunkers on the front either side of the green. I think years of over filling resulted in the bunkers actually being above the level of the green! It's generally the softest bunker shot you will ever have to hit. The parking lot is also about five yards behind the green and I would suggest not parking in that area.
-------
#10- The old #1 has since be deemed "Matchen's Monster" by an old write up that the weekday starter wrote up a couple years ago. For the most part the long time super, "Matchen" decided to redo the hole about 15 years ago. I believe he was the one responsible for removing the bunkers inbetween this hole and 18, and purposly pointed the tee box into the trees on the right. He also added the mounding around the green which acts like a bumper, funneling shots back to the green. This was always not an easy hole for someone who likes to hit a draw.

#11 Longer Par 4 which had a back tee installed in 1999. The big problem for the golfer on this hole is to make sure that you stay away from the pond in front. And the cartpath with separates the green from OB (and which enjoys bouncing your balls OB at times.) Off the tee you almost have to hit over two large overgrown evergreens in order to not be blocked out by willows on the left side.

#12- My favorite par 3 on the course, added a new back tee to the hole in 1999 to make it close to 210 from the tees. Plays far longer due to the green being smaller that the front hood of my car. There are no bunkers on this hole, but with so many people missing the green in reg, makes for some fun up and downs.

#13- A par 4 through the trees. Tight first shot is followed by a neat origional green guarded by tight woods on the right and a bunker short left. Anything long goes into a semi collection area behind the green. The green itself is not overly hard, but is subtle, as are most of the older greens.

#14- The "Signature" hole of Wilmette. Super tight 2-iron/wegde hole through the trees with three huge bunkers around. One in the middle left of the fairway making sure you cant hit a driver. The other funny part of this hole is the "rough" on the right between the fairway and out of bounds forest preserve has absolutly no grass...its hard packed dirt. So anything right is bouncing OB. Someone once told me that they did Stats for an early morning group that plays there on Saturdays and that the #14 is the hardest hole, despite being pretty short.

#15- Really cool hole with a really neat green. Another original. The green is tiny and has two deep bunkers in front and hardpan long. Only about a long iron wedge, but a very tight little hole.

#16- Short par 3 which used to have two sets of tees. Now only uses the left side. There used to be a large bunker on the left side to hit over, but was transformed to a series of small little pot bunker things that don't look quite right. Moving the tees right also took the water out of play in front. It used to be a fun little P Wedge par 3 over water, now it's a semi-hard 9-Iron.

#17- This Par 5 has two main things that make it what it is. Santa's Village a series of evergreens, featuring small ball stealing gnomes  on the right about 260 out, and a Nugent beach bunker next to the green. Not a horrible hole, and it's fun to give it a rip in two.

#18- There is alot that was done wrong when they re-did this hole after the fire. What used to be a hard 450-finishing hole to a tough green is now a little odd. The green was moved to where the old putting green was located and the old 18th green shaped into a putting green.

The story behind this move is a little strange. After the Clubhouse was burned down in 2002, the club was operating out of trailers in the parking lot. When deciding on where to place the new clubhouse they found that the ideal location would be between the 9th and 18th greens on the far side, where the trailers were currently. The problem was that they found that it would cost them something like $10,000 to move the trailers and they would have to close the course for a day or so to do it. They found that price too much, and instead came up with the idea of flipping nines and moving the 18th hole to the back of the new clubhouse. The only real reason they switched around the nines was so that instead of taking a hard turn from #9 to 10, you had to pass the snack bar on your way across the property.

Here is a previous thread on Joseph Roseman, the original architect, started by Shivas back in 2004:
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,8045.msg156384.html#msg156384

[PCCraig]

How could anybody think a cart path down entire the right side of 1, 3, 10 or 11 or down the right side of 18 is a good idea?  Those will only kick balls further into trouble or OB and slow down play, not to mention piss off golfers when shots that shouldn't have gone OB go OB.

Dave,

Overall it seems that a major directive from the park district / members / staff is that they would like a full cart path system. Of course, considering how tight the property is, they literally have to move holes in order to do so. I think there are a few promising features that the GCA is trying to add to the course, but overall he seems to be tailoring the course to this new path system. I'm assuming they're doing this because they think 1) they'll generate cart revenue even when it's wet out there vs. opening as walking-only, 2) they think it'll improve the turf quality, and 3) they will be able to get more players around faster.

Which goes back to the main problem with the WPD running the course...it's not a golf course to them, it's a park feature, no different than a pool or baseball field. Their idea of a successful year is getting 40k+ rounds...not maximizing income or even enhancing the playing field for golfers.

Is #2 really going to go over trees?  Just cut 'em down, already...

Yeah, this GCA seems to be doing a lot of "shifting" tees. I would say cut the trees down as well, but the problem Wilmette runs into is (and this is the excuse I've heard) that the insurance companies will raise their premiums too high because that tee (and others) would be more exposed to incoming shots from nearby holes, a byproduct of a tight property.

The bunkers in front of #3 look extremely penal to the seniors and beginners that will be lucky to trickle an approach into the first bunker, then flub it into the second, then flub it into the third, and then maybe get it on the green with their 4th try - assuming of course they don't blade the first try over the green out of fear of the 2nd an 3rd bunkers... 

I give the guy credit for trying to build a somewhat interesting green complex on the 3rd hole. That green actually has a fair amount of movement in it already but there isn't a whole lot of interest around the green. I at least like how he's planning on shifting the tees to the right to make the tee shot less awkward. Right now it's plain goofy with the shallow bunker and range fence on the right, and thick overhanging trees short left.

Get ready for that bunker on #6 to cause more people to miss into the gunk right and waste time looking for balls.

I wish they would just take that bunker out on the left of 6, and expand the fairway. But of course that would mean more players hitting toward #5 and #8 greens? I do like the idea of taking out the willows at the corner and expanding the green back...but that would have to create even more airflow problems with the green sitting further in a forest, no? (And they can't cut anything down back there).

I like the fairway chipping area short/right of #11 for the guys who can't get there in two easily.

I like what the GCA is planning to do with #11. There is a ton of room back there for a new tee and it would make it a strong par-4. It looks like he wants to cut into the bushes (hose housing) behind the current green for the new greensite. I like the new bunker at the corner, but I wish they would cut the trees down on the right, even if it showcases the scrapyard next door.

The little pot bunker short and right of the new kidney green on #13 green has possibilities.

I actually like the current green and site, as it's clearly been untampered with over the years, and is tricky with the drop off long and the OB right of the green. I can't imagine how much "pot" that bunker will be.

However, the biggest problem with this plan is not what's in it, but rather, what's not.  The biggest problem at WGC is the fact that they can't grow grass!  The fairways are horrible (they don't even resemble fairways - they look more like sickly bulegrass rough cut down to 1/2 inch) due to all the clay.  If they're not doing something to improve the turf, this is just lipstick on a pig.

No, they can't grow grass. But I think that's due to the extreme amount of play it gets 12+ hours out of the day, the terrible soil, and all of the huge mature trees sucking up all the moisture and airflow from the grass. AND, that's with a $700k+ budget! 

[PCCraig]

Pat:

Martin has designed two pretty well-received courses here in southern Wisconsin -- the Oaks (not far from my home, and my high school's home course), which was a top-10 new affordable course for Golf Digest several years ago, and Glen Erin, near Janesville. Both have solid greens and good bunkering -- two issues that the master plan gets at for Wilmette. For what it's worth, he's also largely credited with the improvements at Rich Harvest Farms, the "self-designed" course near Chicago that hosted the Solheim Cup not long ago. Here's a thread on Glen Erin:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,39725.0.html

Phil:

Many of those greens in your pictures above look pretty interesting (and big). I'd be curious to see what Martin would do with the green contours at Wilmette, which on the whole are pretty small.