[Ben Stephens]

Dear GCA,

Here are a few images for our proposals for Westbury Golf Course for you all to look at!  the site is just under 100 acres meaning that we dont have that much room to play with  - we would welcome any comments that you have:




Here is the first proper layout proposal after a number of rough sketches of layouts - I probably used more than 50 tracing papers! It came to conclusion that the bunker and waste areas were too expensive and the joined fairways was a bit dangerous on a tight site. The contours in the backrground are the existing contours.




Here is the latest proposed golf course layout - with 20 small bunkers as sand prices in the UK are ridiculous and we have about 80 grassy hollows or grass bunkers which can be an effective hazard. We have removed most of the central hazards as it is not popular in the UK we might end up with just 1 or 2 if we are lucky. The contours on the fairway will be the proper hazard




Here is a CAD drawing of the second green - the green area has 0.05m contour lines and outside of the green area is 0.25m contours. We are trying to create interesting subtle slopes as the majority of players playing this course are club members and it is designed for them. You can have fun with subtle slopes! GB - is grass bunker

Cheers
Ben

[Ben Stephens]

Here is an earlier photomontage of the 3rd hole. The design of the hole has changed to make it easier for the 'weaker' player.

As existing




As initially proposed



Since the the long bunker has been removed, the fairway has been widened in the landing area and the green brought a bit further forward


Cheers
Ben

[Niall C]

Ben

Great stuff. I suspect that like most of the amateurs on this site, I understand how contour maps work but have trouble picturing the severity or otherwise of the slopes shown. The visuals work much better. From what I can see the site looks fairly flat, is that fair comment ?

Niall

[Ben Stephens]

Ben

Great stuff. I suspect that like most of the amateurs on this site, I understand how contour maps work but have trouble picturing the severity or otherwise of the slopes shown. The visuals work much better. From what I can see the site looks fairly flat, is that fair comment ?

Niall

Niall,

Hole 3 is probably the flattest part of the West Part of the Site - the East is predominately flat. The rest is on a subtle slope going from the highest point which is the 16th tee down to the lowest point which is the 10th tee. Currently it is about 10m difference from the highest to lowest point. With the landfill it will go up to 15m from the highest to lowest points

Cheers
Ben

[Alex Miller]

Ben,

I am a fan of the "fairway flow" meaning the connecting parts of the fairways. I think this plan looks like a great use of the land given the acreage of the site.

It really looks good, and given the fact that holes #1 and #13 (okay, maybe 12 too  ) are the only places on the course where an eagle putt is possible, it seems like it will hold its own against pencil and paper.


One quick question about safety I suppose, which is something I'm sure was at the forefront during the whole time on a small site like this. How in play are #9's tees from #1's tee. 1st tee shot of the day with OB right, I'd imagine more than a few balls could go well left.

Cheers,
Alex

[Jeff_Mingay]

Ben,

As you know, it's difficult to judge comprehensively from the overviews you've posted. But I must say, I really like the look of the routing on such a confined site.

(Seemingly!) nice work, and good luck with the project. 

[Jon Wiggett]

Ben,

plans look good. Is there a 9 hole course there already?

Jon

[Tim Nugent]

Ben,  I assume you are looking for some honest feedback.
1st, go back to your 1st idea.  I don't see the fairways being any less safe than the second option.  I hate to say it but that option looks like a sell-out. You show some exceptional thinking to go with cojoined fairways to make a small site feel much bigger than it really is.

A couple observations,

As mentioned, #1 with OB  and range tee right not good,  Consider switching 1 and 9. This would required flipping 6/7 and 2/8 but that gets rid of the parallel same direction holes of 9/18 and 6/17.  Of course 6 would become 2, 7-6, 8-7, and 2-8.

Cut the left trees off #13 tee, don't create a chute.  This gives slicers somewhere to start the ball and let it come back to the fairway. Otherwise, they are forced between the trees and end up in #17.

Not a big fan of water left/OB Right setup on #3. If the wind comes from the SW, it's pushing slices OB. If you need a lake for irrigation, it looks like around #11 is available.  It looks like you are trying to use the water on 3 to protect the 4th green.  Having 2 of the 3 water carries on sucessive holes then not again until the last shot is disjointed.  I don't know what those contour lines are (meter/quarter meter?)

Consider rotating greens to tees and tees to greens on 5-6-7 to get away from the awkward circulation of 16 to 17.  Having #16 green back up to #13 green.

If you do stay with the bowling alley-like single fairways, try to do something to get away the straight back and forth holes in the middle.  Put some curves or bends in.

Just my back-of the napkin review. I know that there are probably many constraints I ignored and didn't have the benefit of scaling it all out.

Cheers

[Adrian_Stiff]

Ben,  I assume you are looking for some honest feedback.
1st, go back to your 1st idea.  I don't see the fairways being any less safe than the second option.  I hate to say it but that option looks like a sell-out. You show some exceptional thinking to go with cojoined fairways to make a small site feel much bigger than it really is.Tim - I think we will go back to co-joined fairways its just a bit easier to show conventionally for planning purposes at this stage

A couple observations,

As mentioned, #1 with OB  and range tee right not good,  Consider switching 1 and 9. This Hole is the only hole we are keeping that is in the current routing, if we flip 1 and 9, it means the first is a short hole which we dont want, the 9th is better in that postion than left, the pro shop iand control is right by that 1st tee, it is a bit tight but the trees are tall, our idea is to make a 260 yard par 4 that is hard to drive and Ben and I thought we could protect this hole by contouring the green in such a way that it is best approached from 90 yards or so, drives up close to the green will be punished unless dead centre of the green, the locals will soon realise that best place is an accurate rescue/hybrid and the right or left is a no noThis would required flipping 6/7 and 2/8 but that gets rid of the parallel same direction holes of 9/18 and 6/17.  Of course 6 would become 2, 7-6, 8-7, and 2-8.

Cut the left trees off #13 tee, don't create a chute. We need to keep those trees to protect a footpath, the right hand tree could go perhaps. This gives slicers somewhere to start the ball and let it come back to the fairway. Otherwise, they are forced between the trees and end up in #17.

Not a big fan of water left/OB Right setup on #3. If the wind comes from the SW, it's pushing slices OB. If you need a lake for irrigation, it looks like around #11 is available.  It looks like you are trying to use the water on 3 to protect the 4th green.  Having 2 of the 3 water carries on sucessive holes then not again until the last shot is disjointed.  I don't know what those contour lines are (meter/quarter meter?)contur lines are at 0.25m, we do need that lake for irrigation and its the obvious place for water to flow and there is already a big lake behind it though we cant use that for irrigation. 3 & 4 will be the star holes in most minds. Ideally we would have hidden the irrigation lake but the big minus with this site is the fact its only on 100 acres

Consider rotating greens to tees and tees to greens on 5-6-7 to get away from the awkward circulation of 16 to 17.  Having #16 green back up to #13 green.There is a very nice shelter belt of trees between 13 and 16 so we want to keep them

If you do stay with the bowling alley-like single fairways, try to do something to get away the straight back and forth holes in the middle.  Put some curves or bends in.Yes these holes may have similar routings but with different contouring we hope they will behave and feel very differently

Just my back-of the napkin review. I know that there are probably many constraints I ignored and didn't have the benefit of scaling it all out.I am pretty sure if you were there with us you probably would be thinking the same, we had to route 14 15 and 16 that way as wel, the 1st hole was a dilema, there might be a better routing without a two nine option but the brief was two loops if possible.

Cheers

[Ally Mcintosh]

Thanks for sharing guys... Are you at liberty to share your approximate budget?

Best of luck...

[Mac Plumart]

It would be super cool if you could keep us in the loop as this thing progresses with updates, changes of plans, photos, etc.  Always educational to see this stuff unfold.

Thanks!!

[Adrian_Stiff]

Ally, we have talked about £1,000,000 being the budget but I think we can get well inside that, its a simpleish irrigation system, greens tees and aproaches perhap twin head the greens to do the surrounds £180.000, the USGA greens will probably cost £200,000, tees and approaches rootzone perhaps £80,000, drainage another £80.000 the rest will be labour and machine hire. We wont be spending a penny more than we need too.

Mac - Yes I think we will be able too.

[David Harshbarger]

Also, not sure how you could do it, but with 3 and 4 the highlights, in your estimation, is there any way to get them into the 2nd nine, say around 14-15?  It would seem better to have the crescendo closer to the end of the round.  (Reversing the 9's didn't seem a good option as current 10 is anything but an easing into the round.)

[Adrian_Stiff]

David you could reverse the nines but the current pro shop/ control is right by the 1st tee it would not be the end of the world if it was the 10th. With a small site golf course design is much more of a balance of the compromises, on 200 acres there is less interference/ dilema. I do agree the 3rd and 4th would be better later in the round. The 4th is a 140 yard par 3 hole fairly easy, the 3rd comes out tougher every time we look at it. The compromises with switching the nines are *2nd hole is a par 3, *18th hole is a par 3. I just favour it as it is but it could be one of those where the club switch the nines in time or we switch it and it gets switched back!

[Alex Miller]

I like the flow of the 9's as proposed.


Have you thought about shifting the tees on ten over to the right as we look at the graphic (approximately 10 yards) to give the hole more of a road hole feel? If you shifted those tees, maybe 9 & 18 could also move over slightly and safety could be improved? Also, it appears as though the tees for 9 in the first plan are farther from #1 green than in the second plan.


As for the lake on 3, could it be shaped so that there is a little more width for someone who would want to take iron from the tee and have 150+ in on the approach? I think 4 looks appropriately penal for a par 3 of that length though.

Last thing, any reason why 8 isn't a little longer? Just seems like there's some space there to be used.


I hope the final mow lines resemble plan 1 more than plan 2. Congratulations!

[Adrian_Stiff]

Yes the reason 8 is not a bit longer is another compromise, currently this is a 9 hole course and the idea is to build about 12 new holes on the new land. When we have we will play 9 holes on those while we recreate the other 6 holes on the land housng the current course. Green 8 is on the new land and is an important component in the phase 1 switch over to a 9 hole course. If we built the 8th green 50 yards further it would interfer too much into the existing course, so we left it shorter than where we might have placed it had we not had the restriction.

[Jon Wiggett]

Yes the reason 8 is not a bit longer is another compromise, currently this is a 9 hole course and the idea is to build about 12 new holes on the new land. When we have we will play 9 holes on those while we recreate the other 6 holes on the land housng the current course. Green 8 is on the new land and is an important component in the phase 1 switch over to a 9 hole course. If we built the 8th green 50 yards further it would interfer too much into the existing course, so we left it shorter than where we might have placed it had we not had the restriction.

Why not build a cheap temporary green maybe even artificial for the short period between changing to the full new course. This would mean a very short period does not dictate the long term interest

Jon

[Adrian_Stiff]

John - Its a possible, we dont know the timing between phase 1 and phase 2 its landfill influenced on quantities available it could be 1, 2 or 3 years between the phasing. We did discuss it very quickly but initially ruled it out but a smaller simpler green thats just mown over when the 'back' green is ready is worth thinking about. A 6500 yards we are not really looking for length.

[Kevin Pallier]

Ben / Adrian

Good luck with the project

The 3rd reminds me of the 3rd ? at the Players Club (from memory) in a sense - thoughts ?

[Jud_T]

From the cheap seats I agree wholeheartedly that if at all possible keeping the conjoined fairways will go a long way toward alleviating both the feeling of tightness as well as the up and back nature dictated by the smaller property.  Just the look of the two renderings is dramatically different.  For reference, there's an aerial of Flossmoor Country Club here that shows a similar look that's quite captivating:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/flossmoor-country-club/

[Adrian_Stiff]

Ben / Adrian

Good luck with the project

The 3rd reminds me of the 3rd ? at the Players Club (from memory) in a sense - thoughts ?

Kevin - Yes the penal right and water left does have the same. We just need this lake for the irrigation storage more than it being in play, we would like it as small as possible but it needs to store enough water for the summer and not drop more than a metre and a half.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Ben
It is interesting how much better the first looks with shared fairways, but the greens are much better too.
Ask Tim if The Old Course is not good too...

As mentioned, #1 with OB  and range tee right not good,  Consider switching 1 and 9. This would required flipping 6/7 and 2/8 but that gets rid of the parallel same direction holes of 9/18 and 6/17.  Of course 6 would become 2, 7-6, 8-7, and 2-8.

If you do stay with the bowling alley-like single fairways, try to do something to get away the straight back and forth holes in the middle.  Put some curves or bends in.

Tim
There are curves in 1/2 of the holes - where do you propose he gets more land to add curves to the rest?
16 to 17 is not awkward - it is a few feet of walking around a tee.

Cheers

[Sean_A]

I don't know, what do you think about using the oob more aggressively on #2?  Since you have this feature why not exploit it?  The tee starting alongside the OOB and the green close to it as well.  You can then make #3 a much shorter par 4 using the water more as a risk/reward (maybe drivable par 4) hole rather than a no man's land distance where the water is considered.  This could even allow for #9 to be played as a par 3 or a drivable par 4.  The tee range on this hole of some 125ish yards could be quite a talking point for the course.

Like the others, I much prefer the first iteration with "double fairways" and more centreline bunkering - especially if the bunkering is going to be as limited as you say.  Its the only way to make it seem like there is more sand than there really is.   

Ciao

[Neil White]

Hi Ben / Adrian,

Just for a bit of fun I had a play around with your routing....... 



Essentially I wasn't looking to re-invent the wheel so holes 1, 9 thru' 13, 17 and 18 stayed the same.  The middle six holes became seven with the addition of the 15th, a medium length par 3.  I also looked to mix the holes up to try and reduce where you play up-down-up.  As a result the 2nd leads you down toward the furthest point on the course via a small walk and the third which now becomes a long par 3.

The new fourth plays opposite to your fifteenth and the fifth is a medium length par 4 again playing opposite to your fourteenth.

A long par 5 is the new sixth which gets interesting around the 150 yards from the green with a narrowing fairway and water either side - I liked the look of this hole.  The same can be said of the seventh which can play either as a mid to long par 3 or a risk reward drivable par 4.  I also preferred the two holes around the water to play clockwise so as not to bring the OOB into play.

Eight is a mid length par 4 and nine stays the same - the only difference is the extension of the pond to cut infront of the tee - I listened to your idea that the first should make the golfer think when on the tee and not just flail away with driver - the water and your narrowing of the fairway would influence this decision more.

As mentioned the ninth thru' thirteen stay as your routing with fourteen playing as your sixth, the new fifteenth bridges the gap to the sixteenth which plays as a reverse of your eighth.  Seventeen and eighteen are as your routing.

If you have time let me know what you think........

Cheers,

Neil.

[Robin_Hiseman]

Ben

Just a technical question for you.  Why go to the extreme detail of 5cm contours on the green detail, especially on the steeper slopes which you can't use for hole locations?  Most UK and European designers use a main contour interval at 0.25m, with intermediates, on the green only, of 0.125m.  Outside of the green it would be generally be 0.5 or 1.0m, depending on whether it is a flat or hilly site.  That's a lot of sketching and digitising to take up your time at such a detailed scale. 

Good luck with the project.  Very brave of you to put it on here for analysis.

Robin

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()