[Jason Topp]

Does placing the clubhouse on high ground compromise the quality of a golf course?  I concede that such a compromise might be worthwhile given the pleasant view such a location affords. 

This question occured to me while climbing up a wet hill to a clubhouse after climbing an uphill 18th and 3 putting.  I was thinking I would rather be walking downhill at that point.   

[Brent Hutto]

The most extreme opposite example I can think of is Pitlochry Golf Club in central Scotland. Here's my description from a few years ago of the opening holes, starting from the clubhouse on the very lowest point of a near-mountainous property.

The first five holes are uphill, uphill, uphill, crosshill (Par 3) and uphill respectively. I ask[ed] the club Captain which wind direction made the course play toughest and he said it was from the North because the first five are uphill and upwind. That is the prevailing direction and on the two days I played it was primarily from the Northwest. I tend to agree with his assessment. For a short course those first five holes played like five miles on 12-13C temps and 10-15mph breezes (with stronger gusts during my first round). I need to find a small-interval topo map but I'd say the overall climb from clubhouse to fifth green is probably 300 feet or a bit more. Then just to add insult to injury there's an additional set of steps leading up 20 feet or so to the back tees on the sixth before you're finally allowed to start downhill (only to return uphill several more times later in the round).

But for all the daunting nature of that start, I guess if the last five holes were up that hill after having already been up and down smaller slopes several times it would be pretty brutal.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,35128.0.html

[Ally Mcintosh]

Hi Jason,

It doesn’t always compromise the golf course but it can if you want to build up to some dramatic climax of scenery etc… So maybe it compromises the 18th hole (Cypress Point?)…? I do get fed up playing so many modern courses with a long uphill finisher…

Putting a clubhouse in the corner of a property or in the case of tight sites, a long way away from the main access road, is usually more of a compromise for the course.

[Jason Topp]

The Kingsley clubhouse location seems ideal to me in that it is halfway down a broad gentle slope.  You have nice views of the front nine and the walk from the 18th to the clubhouse is pleasant. 

One big advantage of our clubhouse location is that it allows you to follow a match on the 16th, 17th and 18th holes with a drink in hand while relaxing in an Adirondak chair.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jason,

I think Donald Ross endorsed picking a high corner of the property for siting the clubhouse

[Tommy Williamsen]

At Musgrove Mill the last hole is not uphill but the clubhouse is a significant hike up a hill after you hole out.  I like a clubhouse that overlooks the course.

[BHoover]

Jason,

I think Donald Ross endorsed picking a high corner of the property for siting the clubhouse

Canton Brookside adopted Ross' endorsement to a tee.  The clubhouse is located on the high point of the property, so the first hole plays dramatically (by Ohio standards) downhill, whereas the 18th plays straight up the same slope.  The beauty of the clubhouse's location is that, thanks to tree removal, one can see all but 2 or 3 holes from the clubhouse.  The view is very cool.

[Sean_A]

I too am partial to raised houses as views are worth a ton when having a drink.  They don't have to be on the highest point of the property.  In fact it can often be better to have the house at about the midway height of the property or even the lowest part of the property if the property is is well above a valley.  In any case, I have been to a few places where the house is at a low point on the flat and it is very disappointing - Hockley is a good example.  While high above the valley, the house at Church Stretton is very disappointing as well as there are no views of consequence. On the other hand, I just played Reddish Vale and its house is on high ground with a killer last hole.  Think of Painswick's 1st hole - harsh.   

Ciao 

[Jason Topp]

I too am partial to raised houses as views are worth a ton when having a drink.  They don't have to be on the highest point of the property.  In fact it can often be better to have the house at about the midway height of the property or even the lowest part of the property if the property is is well above a valley.  In any case, I have been to a few places where the house is at a low point on the flat and it is very disappointing - Hockley is a good example.  While high above the valley, the house at Church Stretton is very disappointing as well as there are no views of consequence. On the other hand, I just played Reddish Vale and its house is on high ground with a killer last hole.  Think of Painswick's 1st hole - harsh.   

Ciao 

Kington is nice, however.

[Sean_A]

I too am partial to raised houses as views are worth a ton when having a drink.  They don't have to be on the highest point of the property.  In fact it can often be better to have the house at about the midway height of the property or even the lowest part of the property if the property is is well above a valley.  In any case, I have been to a few places where the house is at a low point on the flat and it is very disappointing - Hockley is a good example.  While high above the valley, the house at Church Stretton is very disappointing as well as there are no views of consequence. On the other hand, I just played Reddish Vale and its house is on high ground with a killer last hole.  Think of Painswick's 1st hole - harsh.   

Ciao 

Kington is nice, however.

Yes, Kington's clubhouse location is perfect; views of the valley and 1 & 18.  Yet, the house is on the lowest point of the property - killer drive up the hill though.

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

NGLA, Shinnecock, Sebonack, Friars Head, Montclair, Essex County, Plainfield, The Knoll, Mountain Ridge, Riviera, LACC, Bel Air, Southern Hills, Glen Ridge, Forest Hills are just a few that come to mind on properties that have significant elevation changes at the perimeter of the property.

At the moment I can't think of any that have the clubhouse sited at the bottom of a property that has significant elevation changes at the perimeter.

[J_ Crisham]

NGLA, Shinnecock, Sebonack, Friars Head, Montclair, Essex County, The Knoll, Mountain Ridge, Riviera, LACC, Bel Air, Southern Hills, Glen Ridge, Forest Hills are just a few that come to mind on properties that have significant elevation changes at the perimeter of the property.

At the moment I can't think of any that have the clubhouse sited at the bottom of a property that has significant elevation changes at the perimeter.

I would add Crystal Downs, Interlachen,Olympic Club, Valley Club, MPCC, Cypress Point, The Cal Club, and Augusta National-  looks lik e a common denominator of the great ones.

[Jason Topp]

I would add Crystal Downs, Interlachen,Olympic Club, Valley Club, MPCC, Cypress Point, The Cal Club, and Augusta National-  looks lik e a common denominator of the great ones.
[/quote]

Would the courses you and Patrick list be better or worse if the clubhouse was located at a different spot?  As Ally suggests in an earlier post, CPC might be better if you finished on 17.  Interlachen would definitely be better with a different finishing hole - the 18th is miserable even if it is historic. 

There are examples of wonderful golf courses with clubhouses not on a high point of a sloping property - Kingsley, Pasatiempo, Northland, Gullane, Porthcawl, Lundin Links but I will readily concede that most of the big names finish with an uphill slog.

     

[Wayne Wiggins, Jr.]

NGLA, Shinnecock, Sebonack, Friars Head, Montclair, Essex County, The Knoll, Mountain Ridge, Riviera, LACC, Bel Air, Southern Hills, Glen Ridge, Forest Hills are just a few that come to mind on properties that have significant elevation changes at the perimeter of the property.

At the moment I can't think of any that have the clubhouse sited at the bottom of a property that has significant elevation changes at the perimeter.

Could Merion (East) be the exception that proves the rule?  I don't have access to a topo map (nor do I actually know how to read one!), the holes on the East side of Ardmore Ave. (#2, 3, 6, 7, and seem to be of higher elevation, as does #15's green on the other side of the road.  I've had this discussion w/ friends in the past, that if designers were given this same parcel pf land, naked of any golf course, how would they route a course... and for the sake of this thread, how many might put the clubhouse near the 6th green or 7th tee (which seems to be the highest point on the property)... maybe even use that structure that's just to the right of the 6th green?

All in all, i agree... clubhouses on high ground work... the Philly area has Aronimink, Philly CC, Manufacturers, Rolling Green, Applebrook, among others.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ross did seem to favor property corners often, but my theory is that his courses were truly country clubs, and most are on the city side of the property, i.e., the shortest run of utilities (and the shortest drive from the city) from where they were to service the clubhouse.  That is still often a concern, as is sun orientation from the golf course.

Land planning theory circa 2000 for housing golf courses has move the CH down to a lesser spot, saving the higher ridges for homes.  The sub theory is that you can "build" a clubhouse view with landscaping around the opening holes/range.  But, a nice view is still usually desireable for ambiance (and under the theory that if they stay, they buy more food/beer)

Some folks point to NGLA as an example where the CH doesn't need to be behind the last green, but rather allow the hole to slide by, but of course, that was a result of a ch fire and a new ch.

I have always felt that the 18th is compromised often by going way uphill, but that depends on the course, and I am sure that in the day of RTJ, the "strong finish" theory fit right in that mold well.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ross did seem to favor property corners often, but my theory is that his courses were truly country clubs, and most are on the city side of the property, i.e., the shortest run of utilities (and the shortest drive from the city) from where they were to service the clubhouse.  That is still often a concern, as is sun orientation from the golf course.

Valid points.
It would be interesting to see if Ross's clubhouses were sited at the most convenient location for utilities.
Hard to imagine that that point would also coincide with the highest point on the property.

Land planning theory circa 2000 for housing golf courses has move the CH down to a lesser spot, saving the higher ridges for homes.  The sub theory is that you can "build" a clubhouse view with landscaping around the opening holes/range.  But, a nice view is still usually desireable for ambiance (and under the theory that if they stay, they buy more food/beer)

I think you have to categorize "use".  In other words, local club, resort club, residential club.

With a local club, with no homes involved, homesites become irrelevant.
Resort clubs, I would imagine, would want the best view reserved for the clubhouse.

As to the residential clubs, there's probably a tug of war between the interests.
Desert Mountain in Arizona is an interesting example of trying to satisfy two masters.

Some folks point to NGLA as an example where the CH doesn't need to be behind the last green, but rather allow the hole to slide by, but of course, that was a result of a ch fire and a new ch.

That's not correct.
NGLA had NO clubhouse, but was using the Shinnecock Inn on Rt 27 as a temporary clubhouse, when the Inn burned down.

There was no way that CBM, who had been thrown out of Shinnecock, was going to have the members of Shinnecock looking down on his clubhouse, sited behind the current 9th green.

The routing and design of current holes # 1 and # 18 lend credence to the fact that the current clubhouse site was always intended as the clubhouse site, despite CBM's writings to the contrary.

I have always felt that the 18th is compromised often by going way uphill, but that depends on the course, and I am sure that in the day of RTJ, the "strong finish" theory fit right in that mold well.

[J_ Crisham]

I would add Crystal Downs, Interlachen,Olympic Club, Valley Club, MPCC, Cypress Point, The Cal Club, and Augusta National-  looks lik e a common denominator of the great ones.

Would the courses you and Patrick list be better or worse if the clubhouse was located at a different spot?  As Ally suggests in an earlier post, CPC might be better if you finished on 17.  Interlachen would definitely be better with a different finishing hole - the 18th is miserable even if it is historic. 

There are examples of wonderful golf courses with clubhouses not on a high point of a sloping property - Kingsley, Pasatiempo, Northland, Gullane, Porthcawl, Lundin Links but I will readily concede that most of the big names finish with an uphill slog.

     Jason,  I agree that Interlachen 18 could be improved- I believe the removal of a bunch of oak trees and some added fairway bunkering could turn it into a super finisher. CPC is what it is.


[/quote]

[Howard Riefs]

The clubhouse at Sankaty is also at the highest point and I believe adds to the overall quality of the course -- beyond providing great vistas. The course routing and takes full advantage of the elevation. The green for #9 is on the north side, tees for #1 and #16 on the west side, greens for #15 and #18 on the south-west side; #10 tee on south side. (Club entrance and range are on the east side.)

Behind #16




#18 tee (a tad steep)




#18 LZ

[Carl Nichols]

NGLA, Shinnecock, Sebonack, Friars Head, Montclair, Essex County, The Knoll, Mountain Ridge, Riviera, LACC, Bel Air, Southern Hills, Glen Ridge, Forest Hills are just a few that come to mind on properties that have significant elevation changes at the perimeter of the property.

At the moment I can't think of any that have the clubhouse sited at the bottom of a property that has significant elevation changes at the perimeter.

I would add Crystal Downs, Interlachen,Olympic Club, Valley Club, MPCC, Cypress Point, The Cal Club, and Augusta National-  looks lik e a common denominator of the great ones.

Isn't the clubhouse at Cal Club below the area around the 5th and 6th holes, which are located on the perimeter?

Congressional also fits the definition of a clubhouse on the highest point of the property near the perimeter.  The current version, which is massive, has many stories, all looking out onto the Blue course.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Doesn't siting the clubhouse at the perimeter, and especially at a corner, give the architect the greatest latitude for designing the golf course ?

[Ally Mcintosh]

Doesn't siting the clubhouse at the perimeter, and especially at a corner, give the architect the greatest latitude for designing the golf course ?

Depends... There are positives in that you then don't have to take an access road in to consideration to route around (in addition to possible cost saving for infrastructure / utilities).... But you always have to get at least one tee and one green site next to the clubhouse, more than often two of each (four total) and sometimes even more.... A corner site only gives you 90 degrees to do this... a perimeter site gives you 180 degrees... an internal site gives you 360 degrees...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ally,

I think your reply is flawed.

Why do you assume that every corner of a property constitutes a 90 degree angle ?

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ally,

I think your reply is flawed.

Why do you assume that every corner of a property constitutes a 90 degree angle ?

I don't Patrick.... I'm just simplifying it.... Some are 270m degrees... some are 114 degrees.... some are 173 degrees... some are 64 degrees.... all are less than 360 degrees therefore reducing options of how to arrive at the clubhouse....

There are advantages however - it saves space on a tight or awkward shaped site... and as a rule I much prefer clubs / courses with clubhouses on the perimeter beside the access gate...

[Ben Jarvis]

The clubhouse at Royal Melbourne was originally planned to sit atop the hill which is now occupied by one of the great uphill par-3s - #7 West.

One of my favourite clubhouses which sit atop a hill (albeit a gentle one) is at Barwon Heads Golf Club.

[Carl Johnson]

At Musgrove Mill the last hole is not uphill but the clubhouse is a significant hike up a hill after you hole out.  I like a clubhouse that overlooks the course.

I second that approach.  The last hole at my course is actually somewhat downhill, but after you finish you climb a fairly short but steep hill up to the clubhouse.  The view from the clubhouse area down to the finishers on 18 is great. For the walkers, a mechanical lift up to the clubhouse from the 18th green might be appropriate, however.    Regarding Ross couse clubhouse locations, my course is Ross.  However, the clubhouse is not at all near where it was initially, which was close to the street on which the course was located, near a corner of the course, and on the flatest part of the course.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()