[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,

In many ways we say the same thing.  Not familiar with Castle, other than pix, but that is a lot of "for aesthetics" shaping.  Of course, if you see the before pix, you know something was necessary there.  Totally flat wouldn't have drawn flies.

No doubt, every catch basin and low area is a potential problem if not shaped well.  Seems easy enough to put the inlet in the exact low point, but it doesn't always happen.  Perhaps a system of putting the inlets in the less conspicuous areas of the rough would be preferable to creating all the little chipping grass hollows right next to greens, in major landing areas to create better and worse landing spots, etc.  So, I understand that almost every design philosophy has its own inherent problems and can cause as much problem as it eliminates.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Sean,

Are you talking in terms of shaping that leaves low points and therefore possible surface drainage problems?

Or are you talking in terms of shaping changing the soil structure and therefore possibly creating sub-surface drainage problems?

[Sean_A]

I am mainly talking about shaping either causing surface drainage issues or not helping on sites where surface drainage is an issue.  There was a period of time where building drains in hollows was quite popular whereas I would question the value of a hollow if it can't drain well. 

Ciao

[Martin Toal]

I think this is partly a philosophical, and partly an economic, question.

On the philosophy of moving dirt, I am an agnostic. I have played many natural courses shaped using the underlying land features, and also many in which I learned (before or after playing) that much dirt had been shifted. I have a natural preference for linksy style courses, so tend to favour the former, but I have no ideological objection to the latter.

Providing it results in a good course.

Natural features do not necessarily make for authentic golf, nor dirt moving for artificial golf. Some in each category are god, bad or indifferent. I think it is best to judge the course on its merits rather than the purity of the process. So, I guess in GCA ethics terms, I am a consequentialist rather than a deontologicalist.

On the economics, I am not sure that a lower cost of building will necessarily result in a more affordable course. I assume the modern pricing model is to charge the price the market will bear, regardless of actual costs to be covered.

[Tom Yost]

My problem with the phrase is that it is starting to become used by some people as an "advertisement" for the golf course.  As though just because the architect did not move any dirt, it must be a great golf course.  I have heard the phrase several times over the last few months re: newer golf courses by non-traditional minimalist architects and just feel like it is an attempt to capitalize off the success of places like Sand Hills and Bandon Dunes. 

Quite a contrast from the 90's when every new golf course in the greater Phoenix area opened with accolades about how many million cubic yards of dirt were moved to create the course.

It begs the old discussion about which is harder - creating a great course on a great site or creating a great course on a flat, featureless site where the designer has a "blank slate?"  Not to say a totally manufactured course can't be a very good course and fun to play but for me, the connection to the natural environment is one of the elements that takes a course up to the next level.

[Patrick_Mucci]

On the economics, I am not sure that a lower cost of building will necessarily result in a more affordable course. I assume the modern pricing model is to charge the price the market will bear, regardless of actual costs to be covered.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

One only has to look at the price/cost to join and sustain membership at Sebonack, NGLA, Shinnecock and Southampton, four courses contiguous to one another.

You won't find the initiation at NGLA, Shinnecock or Southampton at $ 1,000,000, even though the market could bear it.
It's not always about the money.
Ditto Seminole and nearby clubs.

[Ally Mcintosh]

On the economics, I am not sure that a lower cost of building will necessarily result in a more affordable course. I assume the modern pricing model is to charge the price the market will bear, regardless of actual costs to be covered.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

One only has to look at the price/cost to join and sustain membership at Sebonack, NGLA, Shinnecock and Southampton, four courses contiguous to one another.

You won't find the initiation at NGLA, Shinnecock or Southampton at $ 1,000,000, even though the market could bear it.
It's not always about the money.
Ditto Seminole and nearby clubs.

Patrick,

Do you always have to choose an example so far away from most people's reality? I am quite positive the initiation fee at all of those clubs has very little to do with the amount of earth moved / construction cost of the course.

Generally speaking, most courses in the real world are just trying to make their books balance. Great quality golf courses built at low costs (including examples where only 50,000m3 was moved rather than 1 million m3) make balancing the books easier because they can both charge more and they have spent less.

[Martin Toal]

On the economics, I am not sure that a lower cost of building will necessarily result in a more affordable course. I assume the modern pricing model is to charge the price the market will bear, regardless of actual costs to be covered.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

One only has to look at the price/cost to join and sustain membership at Sebonack, NGLA, Shinnecock and Southampton, four courses contiguous to one another.

You won't find the initiation at NGLA, Shinnecock or Southampton at $ 1,000,000, even though the market could bear it.
It's not always about the money.
Ditto Seminole and nearby clubs.

Apologies, Patrick. I should have stated that I was generalising about the real world. There are always exceptions and outliers. I hear subs at ANGC are reasonable too.

[archie_struthers]

 

Pat , unless I misunderstood you equated not moving dirt  with success requires more "talent" or some such thing.  Isn't it inherently easier to build into great landforms than from scratch on a dead flat site.   Many architects won't take on jobs where the site doesn't move them.  They are a little less choosy in todays environment .

My experience would lead me to believe its harder to build the latter than the former.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Archie,

I think it's easier to build what you're comfortable and familiar with rather than discover the unique aspects of the site and create holes based upon what the terrain presents.
All too often we've heard criticism of architects who "mail it in"

Or, put another way, it takes less talent to craft "cookie cutter" holes.

Flat sites are in a category of their own.
Pine Tree, Boca Rio and other South Florida course would probably be a great case study in routings.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Martin,

I don't think you can dismiss the impact of acquisition costs when pricing the product irrespective of the market.

And, I don't think you can ignore the market either.

Friars Head and Sebonack make an interesting contrast.

Ditto Southampton and Westhampton and Sebonack, Atlantic and Easthampton.
Throw in Noyac as well.

Quite a mixture and quite an interesting pricing comparison.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()