[Chris Kane]

An often talked about topic in Australian golf is the standard of the clubhouse at Royal Melbourne.  




There tend to be two lines of thought about this building.  I've never heard anyone say recently that this is a stunning example of architecture, which I'd say it definitely isn't.

The two alternative arguments go something like this at each extreme:

(1) This low-lying structure seems like it isn't there, which is exactly the intention of the architect.  It makes no attempt to overshadow the two golf courses, therefore it is the best thing they could have.

(2) This is an embarrassment to RM and Australian golf.  The greatest course in the country has the ugliest clubhouse.  It should be torn down and replaced with something more memorable.

I've somewhat unsure of where I stand, but I know it's somewhere in the middle.  I've heard they are in the planning stage for some kind of clubhouse work, but I'm not sure if it is a refit of the interior or a new structure altogether.

Where do you stand?  And, if you don't like the present building, what should they do, assuming no financial constraints!?!

[Chris Kane]

Their clubhouse c.1910 (before the current two course layout).  More appropriate?

[Danny Goss]

Chris,
Whilst it's not the greatest piece of building architecture you will find in Melbourne I must say that every time I have played there I have been enjoying the course too much to take much notice of the Clubhouse. Better a great course and lousy building than vice versa.
However, once inside, or sitting in the shade the view is excellent, wouldn't you agree? And the beer is cold so that's important!!
By the way those photos are rather dark......hope you are not doing Year 12 Photography!!

[Chris Kane]

Thanks for your opinion Danny.

Those aren't my pictures: they are file photos from the State Library of Victoria!  If those photos were mine I wouldn't post them: they're shocking.  I just couldn't be bothered scanning something...just linked these ones from the SLV site.

The view from inside is nothing inspiring, but I agree with you entirely that a great course is more desirable than a great clubhouse.  

This issue with the RM clubhouse can be applied to courses all over the world: what styles of building are best suited to certain types of courses?  Can you think of great courses where the clubhouse overshadows it, or other places like RM where the clubhouse certainly comes 2nd?

[bm]

Its a shocker farnkly, although probably quite in vogue when it was built. Something along the lines of Kingston Heath's clubhouse would lift the overall experience of RM further. A great clubhouse definately elevates the golfing experience and ambience of the club.

[Chris Kane]

BM,

I won't go as far as to say its a shocker, but I do agree with your assessment that it would have been "in vogue" when built.

Thats the risk when you use modern architecture, it goes out of fashion eventually.  IMO they would have been better advised in using a style that was more timeless: ie. Kingston Heath's clubhouse will never go out of fashion.

[NicP]

Chris,

         Have to agree that it is not my favourite clubhouse in Melbourne. In my opionion I think you can have a grand clubhouse that dosen't overshadow the course. Aus examples are Comm, Vic, Metro, Yarra, Royal Adelaide and possibly NSW after their recent reno.

But what do we play golf for? The course or the clubhouse? Give me RM East and West and I would changed my shoes in the public toilet at Sandringham public.

[Mike Duffy]

The RM clubhouse is a testament to the generally ugly and unspiring architecture of the 1960s.

In fact little has changed in regards to modern Oz architecture. I am confident that if the present structure was torn down and replaced, something as unexciting, uninspiring and hideous would replace the present structure, replete with pre-stressed concrete blocks, lots of glass and hard, sharp, modern lines.

In regards to the beer Danny, I must disagree.

The last time I was at RM the glasses failed to hold the either the "head" or the froth residue on the sides of the glasses, a sure sign that they had been washed in detergent without being thorougly rinsed in COLD water and air dried thereafter.

For a modest outlay, the club could have purchased proper "hold the head" glasses off one of the leading distributors.

The food is bloody awful and overpriced, however, that is in keeping with the overall tenor of the premises.

Great golf courses, terrible clubhouse, woeful beer and bloody awful food. Exponential improvement is needed, particularly in a city such as Melbourne, where food and drink plays an integral part in the city's cultural and entertainment life.

[Shane Gurnett]

Chris

RM is in the process of finalising their planning approval for a major renovation (not restoration) of the exisiting clubhouse. The shell of the current brick vener structure is to be retained, with a new, classic looking second level addition to be built. It will be interesting to see how it all comes up. Apparently many of the older RM members were against the new clubhouse, presumably on the grounds of financial impost. This is notwithstanding the fact that I understand it will all be funded from the clubs healthy cash reserves without the need for a levy. Sometimes its just hard to get the oldies to agree to anything that makes sense (as you and I well know).

As for the quality of the beer, wine and food at the sandbelt courses, I consider myself to have an abundance of suitable experience, and thus rank them as follows:

Eq 1. Metropolitan (midweek "wags" day a pure delight)
Eq 1. Commonwealth (at least we are getting something right)
3 Victoria (oustanding food, wine and service)
4. Kingston Heath  (the best wine list on the sand belt)
5. Yarra Yarra (a terrific dining room to boot)
6. RM (the beer is only just acceptable and the food is pretty lousy)

Any one care to disagree with me?

Shane

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

What catches my eye about the current clubhouse - other than its horizontal modern look - is that it looks very small. Especially in comparison to the old clubhouse and when you think it is for a 36 hole complex. I think they could improve on both the old and the new - I hope the new clubhouse reflects more of Australia's architectural style/heritage.

[Chris Kane]

Tom,

The RM clubhouse is huge: no shortage of space at all.  The pics I posted only show a small part of the facade.

Nic,

As with you, I'd take their courses over a great clubhouse anyday.  A nice clubhouse helps, but it is peripheral to the golf.  A great golf club will always put the course(s) first.

Shane,

Interesting to hear their plans: kind of defeats the argument about it being a low-lying structure that is inconspicuous.  It will be hard to miss now.

I'm not a food+wine connoisseur like yourself, so I won't comment on your rankings!

Mike,

They must be doing something awfully wrong if they can't do a decent beer.  It's not that hard.

[corey miller]

    If one takes into account the maitenance budgets, I will trade my clubs 1890 Stanford White clubhouse for RM.  I will also trade courses but I know they will not do that

[BillV]

Interesting topic here.  I really liked the low key, non-obtrusive appearance of the clubhouse as I saw it on TV.  I liked the putting greens behind the clubhouse as well, no nonsense.

Clubhouses are way over-rated.  ONce again the GOLF EXPERIENCE is way too important for some.  Too damn many.  A nice spot for a beer, some trophies, a place to change, spare no expence or water with the showers, no valet parking, a small separate pro's shop near the first teeing ground, a veranda or patio for outside stogies and drinks, no cart barn or need for a shuttle to the first tee.  What more do you need?

RM looks OK to me.  Is a three story palazzio necessary for better golf?  Does it raise your Doak number .25, .5 or a whole point?

Compare Gulph Mills or Garden City  to three or four separate clubhouses as found at Saucon Valley CC.  Maybe RM needs not one, or two but three clubhouses.

As for RM, leave it alone, or if you have to tear the current one down and build a smaller one.  

[RJ_Daley]

Having come to know Duffy's enthusiasm and descriptions of great food and beverage feasts through our telephone conversations the last couple of holidays, I trust his judgement on that aspect of RM's hospitality and facilities completely.

All I would add is that I like the idea of keeping things like this simple in design, with understated elegance and quality.  The golf course is the treasure.  That origianal picture dated c1910 would certainly put it pre-MacKenzie.  I would try to find any documentation of what the members thought of their clubhouse then, and if there were any comments favorable or critical of the old facility that could be attributed to MacKenzie speaking about the style of the clubhouse.  Perhaps that would give some insight as to where to go with this remodel or rebuilding project.  If rebuilding the CH to such an impressive and massive extent as appears in the old picture is too much for the membership to bare or agree to, then I'm sure an architect could be found to follow the design ideals in a downscaled version.  But, whatever they do in the physical format of the CH, they should take pride in the food and beverage without exception.

[Chris Kane]

The current clubhouse is a mid-sixties installment - I havn't been able to find a pic on the net of the clubhouse in Mackenzie's era.

I'll keep looking.  I can remember that it was a classical style, and looked very nice.

[Mark Saltzman]

[Ricardo Ramirez Calvo]

I believe a proper comparison with Royal Melbourne would be the Jockey Club in Argentina. It also has 2 Mackenzie courses, which are not overshadowed by its imposing clubhouse. In my opinion, a clubhouse does not overshadow a great course, on the contrary it complements it. Great golf course, great clubhouse, the best possible combination.

[John Percival]

Re: the multiple clubhouses at Saucon
For many years, the Weyhill cse was the private sanctuary of the execs from Beth Steel. Thus, the separate CH. In fact, the course was so underutilized that on Mondays, caddies were sent there to play instead of the Grace or Old cses. Even now, with Weyhill being fully absorbed into the SVCC family, the remoteness of the course almost requires its own CH.
Interesting side note on Weyhill...when BS execs were playing an important business round, it was called a 'Steel Loop'. If the tee time was scheduled for 11 a.m., then the first tee was closed at 9 a.m. and not re-opened for other play unitl 1 p.m., thus allowing the 'Steel Loop' two hour cushions and no interference from slower (in front) or faster (behind) groups. While that seemed ludicrous to me in my teens, the realities of monster contracts and the frailties of CEO egos still make it foolish, but embarrassingly understandable. And, no, Weyhill is not why they went bankrupt.

As far as the RM clubhouse, there are many other great courses/clubs that share a CH / course disparity. Rye is one great course and one dark CH (as of 8 years ago). Desert Forest the same (5 years ago). And perhaps the worst, Ballybunion.

[Mark Chaplin]

John bar the locker room Rye is a fantastic clubhouse.

[Bill_McBride]

John bar the locker room Rye is a fantastic clubhouse.

What's wrong with that ancient changing room?   Granted it doesn't have the exquisite bathroom and shower rooms one enjoys at Royal Cinque Ports.....

[Matthew Mollica]

Thought this was a good image to include within this thread. A photo taken with the phone, of one of the pictures hanging within the Clubhouse. There are other images of the Clubhouses used at various stages of the Club's life. I'll take photos of them next visit.

[Matthew Mollica]

[RJ_Daley]

Having just arrived home from our journey, days behind Mark, I thought I'd add my two cents to this thread updated to consider the clubhouse in past and present forms.  I was honored to be given the "cooks tour" of the clubhouse as now stands, by the CEO of the club, Paul Rak.  Mr. Rak's office is on the upper floor to the right side of the building as we look at Mark's photo.  Mr. Rak claims to have the best office and view in Melbourne.  I surely wouldn't argue that point. 

I got to see pretty much the entire building, and even got to tour the kitchen and staff dining and out of the general view building areas, because I was interested in the food and beverage aspect as well as the CH itself.  As we see from his post a dozen years ago, Mike Duffy probably stated the unvarnished truth of the clubhouse and F&B quality as it stood back then.  While I didn't dine there, it seems to me with Mr. Rak's personality, and what I gleaned from his gracious tour along with a round of golf with him, seeing him interact with many of his members, they can't help but have hit the high note in the renovations and I trust, F&B operations under Mr. Rak.  Everything was clean lines, but quality design and construction, nothing gawdy or over done.  The member relations with Mr. Rak were notably appreciative and respectful of their 'Chief'.  It is an obvious formula for quality. 

I've seen too many overdone white elephants of clubhouses that one could see were added on many times with no theme other than to expand the facility where nothing matches and just horrible detractions from the golf courses they serve.  Royal Melbourne hit the happy quality spot, it seems to me.

[Mark Chaplin]

I spent a week at Royal Melbourne a couple of years ago playing in a reciprocal clubs event. Paul Rak must be one of golf's finest GMs, he is certainly highly valued by the members. He has an ability to "always be there" unobtrusively supervising and managing his team as well as dealing with members and guests. If he sat on your table at lunch, between courses he'd be off "doing the rounds" yet not appearing to miss a conversation at the table, a skill indeed.

I know he left a hole at Kingston Heath when he returned to Royal Melbourne.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()