News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
How big a site do you need ?
« on: June 04, 2014, 08:00:28 AM »
So, how big a site do you need to build.........

a) a strategic 18 hole golf course ?

b) an 18 hole "championship" standard course minus the peripheral things you actually need to hold a championship ie. room for spectators, tented village etc. ?

c) smallest site possible for functional, good fun 18 hole course (say par 68 upwards) ?

Niall

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: How big a site do you need ?
« Reply #1 on: June 04, 2014, 08:55:51 AM »
Niall:

It always depends a bit on the shape of the property ... if there are odd corners or narrow strips of property, they often can't be used efficiently, and the total goes up.

Generally, though ... assuming you're building it for reasonably heavy play and you can't overlap holes or build double fairways or have too many tees that hit over the previous green ...

I would say 160 acres for the good strategic course, 200 acres for the championship course, and maybe 100-120 acres for the par-68.  To get 18 holes into 100-120 acres everything has to fit perfectly ... more like if you are able to draw the boundaries AFTER the layout is done ... and you need to have neighbors that won't fuss if balls go onto their property.

I understand there are many fine courses that fit it all into 100 or 120 acres, but they really aren't built for the modern world and its liability issues, and without trees having been planted years ago in all the right places, they would probably be too dangerous.

P.S.  If you are going to have wall-to-wall cart paths as part of your project, these numbers go up, because you have to start worrying about the safety of golfers on an adjacent cart path, instead of in the adjacent fairway.

Steve Salmen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How big a site do you need ?
« Reply #2 on: June 04, 2014, 10:33:11 AM »
Does it take less land to do an out and back links type 18 hole course?  Does anyone know the area of TOC? It must be very small by today's standards.

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How big a site do you need ?
« Reply #3 on: June 04, 2014, 01:04:06 PM »
Steve

As Tom says you need to have very understanding neighbours which TOC certainly has when you consider that a lot of the bordering ground is within the ownership of the Links Trust while the two or three other owners are supportive of TOC eg. the Old Course Hotel depends on TOC for its business. You could say therefore that in reality the bounds of the course extends beyond the playing area in terms of whats in bounds. To answer you basic question however of what the playing area is I really don't know but suspect someone will.


Tom

Many thanks for that analysis. I posed the question in my lunch break when I was in a rush so didn't give the question any context, and the context is this, in another thread there was a discussion on widths of fairways and the idea promoting wide of fairways for strategic golf. Personally I don't think you need wide fairways beyond the norm (whatever that is) to provide strategic golf but on the basis that apparently you do I was interested to see whether a strategic course with its wider fairways took up more land than a championship course which presumably would be longer.

Intuitively I had thought it might actually have been the other way round in that the wider playing corridors in a strategic course would take up more land than say the additional yardage for championship tees that could perhaps be poked into corners without the need to have full width from the very back if that makes sense.

The area for the par 68 is an interesting one as I measured up a local course on the work GIS mapping system and it came to 110 acres including clubhouse/ car park and practice area that would be no more than 150 yds long and about 20 to 30 yds wide. I haven't played the course yet but I bet it has some of the boundary issues you refer to.

Niall
« Last Edit: June 04, 2014, 01:14:08 PM by Niall Carlton »

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How big a site do you need ?
« Reply #4 on: June 04, 2014, 02:51:04 PM »

To get 18 holes into 100-120 acres everything has to fit perfectly ... more like if you are able to draw the boundaries AFTER the layout is done ... and you need to have neighbors that won't fuss if balls go onto their property.



Sounds like Merion to me...interesting...

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: How big a site do you need ?
« Reply #5 on: June 04, 2014, 03:53:55 PM »

To get 18 holes into 100-120 acres everything has to fit perfectly ... more like if you are able to draw the boundaries AFTER the layout is done ... and you need to have neighbors that won't fuss if balls go onto their property.



Sounds like Merion to me...interesting...

Jim:

That's not a coincidence.  Merion is the example I drew from, although I have heard different numbers over the years for their true acreage -- everything from 107 acres to 126.  I really should measure it on Google Earth so I know for sure. 

What I know is, you couldn't put the puzzle together any more tightly than that, which is why I respect the course so much.  There is zero wasted space there on the margins, and if the gaps between holes were any closer, there would be a lot of balls on the wrong fairway.  [I've hit the wrong fairway at Merion a couple of times in my rounds there, they are closer together than most people realize.]

Royal Worlington & Newmarket is the nine-hole equivalent of Merion.  I suspect it's only about 50 acres, because there are four holes where a tee hits over the previous green.  That's a real space-saver, which is why I made the list of exceptions in my response to Niall.


Mark Bourgeois

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How big a site do you need ?
« Reply #6 on: June 04, 2014, 03:57:07 PM »

To get 18 holes into 100-120 acres everything has to fit perfectly ... more like if you are able to draw the boundaries AFTER the layout is done ... and you need to have neighbors that won't fuss if balls go onto their property.



Sounds like Merion to me...interesting...

If you have the right property does it matter whether you order wit or witout (land swap) ?
Charlotte. Daniel. Olivia. Josephine. Ana. Dylan. Madeleine. Catherine. Chase. Jesse. James. Grace. Emilie. Jack. Noah. Caroline. Jessica. Benjamin. Avielle. Allison.

Adrian_Stiff

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How big a site do you need ?
« Reply #7 on: June 04, 2014, 04:32:22 PM »
You can find plenty of courses sub 100 acres in the UK, but in general it involves the right parcel size. TOC is only on about 100.
Here's a theory.... You can safely build two holes in a 140 yard width, so that means each running 35 yards is 1 acre. If you assumed a 35 yard walk back to the back tee at 12 of the holes. You can get a 7000 yarder and a practice ground in 100 acres.

Chipping Sodbury (Hawtree) is 103 acres 6900 yards and never feels tight.
Two that I have done are Forest Hills on 84 acres (par 68) since extended to about 105 acres and par 72.
Players Club - Stranahan is on about 72 acres (par 68) it has 7 short holes.
You could probably build 4 18 hole par 3 golf courses on 100 acres...par 3 holes don't use much land at all.

Royal St Georges is on about 350 acres (I think)...and I think they absord another 200 odd for the Championship..so there's the range
A combination of whats good for golf and good for turf.
The Players Club, Cumberwell Park, The Kendleshire, Oake Manor, Dainton Park, Forest Hills, Erlestoke, St Cleres.
www.theplayersgolfclub.com

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: How big a site do you need ?
« Reply #8 on: June 04, 2014, 05:18:17 PM »
You can find plenty of courses sub 100 acres in the UK, but in general it involves the right parcel size. TOC is only on about 100.
Here's a theory.... You can safely build two holes in a 140 yard width, so that means each running 35 yards is 1 acre. If you assumed a 35 yard walk back to the back tee at 12 of the holes. You can get a 7000 yarder and a practice ground in 100 acres.

Adrian:

I know that there are many older courses in 100 acres and some even less, but ... are you sure your math is right in the above numbers?

For one thing, you need at least one more acre per hole to count for the 35 yards between the middle of the green and a safe buffer at the back [whether it's another hole or the property line or the next tee through the green].

Your two holes in 140 yards [420 feet] is a bit less than any American designer would build now, for liability reasons.  There is no accepted minimum [oddly, to avoid lawsuits over being the guy who set an unsafe distance], but most now use 200 feet from a centerline to a property line, and 250 feet between centerlines ... so two holes with housing on both sides requires 650 feet.  Even thirty years ago, those numbers were 150 feet to the property line and 200+ between holes.

BCowan

Re: How big a site do you need ?
« Reply #9 on: June 04, 2014, 05:19:59 PM »
Adrian,
 
    Is neighboring holes in the UK much different in regards to safety?  Is the US more lawsuit happy?  double fairways seems like great fun to me and a way to say hi to a fellow golfer.  Does it come down to a cultural thing?  

   Has anything been built in the UK under 140 acres in the last 25 years?  

Adrian_Stiff

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How big a site do you need ?
« Reply #10 on: June 04, 2014, 06:31:53 PM »
Adrian,
 
    Is neighboring holes in the UK much different in regards to safety?  Is the US more lawsuit happy?  double fairways seems like great fun to me and a way to say hi to a fellow golfer.  Does it come down to a cultural thing?  

   Has anything been built in the UK under 140 acres in the last 25 years?  
Tom & Ben - The big difference in the UK is we do not really have housing issues so our buffers can be significantly different. Most UK courses have centre lines 200 feet from each other, but that is very achieveable on a 140 yard width, infact a 20 yard rough, 35 yard fairway, 30 yard rough between two holes 35 yards fairway then 20 yards of rough is pretty safe as long as the out of bounds bits are fields/woods etc. Space needed up around the greens is less so tees can be 'squeezed in' sometimes and the medal tees can go back 50 yards fairly easily and keep saftey margins, but I am dealing with a perfect parcel and a very theoretical situation, and agree more space is better. If you look at google earth and measure, many, many courses work on this template this side of the pond.

Most courses built over the last 25 years are still under 140 acres. We do not have too many law suits here, a couple of clubs Saltford and Henbury had double greens in my area, but they have been replaced with single greens now. Cirencester and Wells had a double fairway but re-designed to get rid of the 'problem'. Painswick basically has four shared fairways still. Shirehampton has a few cross-overs but thats the only one that could get into legal problems. I remember Fred Hawtree ringing me once to go to Worlebury as he was unable to solve a problem with boundaries stray balls insurance and modern play, Hawtrees had consulted there for years. I think Uncle Fred had just got fed up with them and his advice was really going to butcher the hole. My advice was the same as his though and there was no nice way to resolve...the hole is still there (4th) and they made no alterations. I would imagine a club could get into real trouble if they had sought the advice of an architect, not taken it and then there was someone hit by a ball, who found out they club had ignored the advice....
A combination of whats good for golf and good for turf.
The Players Club, Cumberwell Park, The Kendleshire, Oake Manor, Dainton Park, Forest Hills, Erlestoke, St Cleres.
www.theplayersgolfclub.com

Peter Pallotta

Re: How big a site do you need ?
« Reply #11 on: June 04, 2014, 07:00:57 PM »
Tom - re your post #5.

As an architect you respect the course very much. As a very casual/outside observer, I have to admit that I don't. And I think you have helped me understand why.

As a professional, you admire how well the routing puzzle was put together, and how tightly/smartly it was done given the limited space/acreage. But a hobbyist, what I see (as a result of this limited space) is a 'busy' design, and a 'cluttered' aesthetic, and an 'complicated' kind of architecture.

As if by necessity given the site, I find (in pictures and on television) that the course has very little of the elegant/modest simplicity that I like so much, either in design or aesthetic -- very little there seems to drape casually (as if accidentally) over the land or to emerge organically/naturally out of the natural site itself. In short, I can't help but see the hand (and overly-cerebral mind) of man all over the course, both from the architectural and maintenance perspective

The course seems too chock-full of all manner of rough and bunkers and cross hazards, as if those who had a hand in the original design process somehow felt that they had lost much (and/or not accomplished enough) in squeezing 18 holes into 120 acres, and began right away to add bunkers and to narrow fairways and to add 'challenge' to the course in a process that has continued right up until today.

I can well understand -- in the context of my view/this theory - Hugh Wilson taking his trip to the UK after the routing was in place, since perhaps in his mind the course wouldn't have been enough of a course based solely on the site, the routing and the greens alone.

All this is guess work, of course, and this guess work comes from just a casual observer. But what I'm suggesting is that, despite the success and praise for a course like Merion, perhaps 120 acres really isn't enough room to create a top notch 18 hole course in America - not unless one commits oneself to the ongoing time and money and effort and inputs and extra features that Merion did.

Peter

PS - no need for anyone to remind me that Merion is universally revered and always has been and that it features prominently in the world atlas of golf and that hundreds of more experiences observers would strongly disagree with me and that the course has successfully hosted riveting major championships and humbled the greatest golfers of all time. I readily admit my problem with the course is mine, not the course's.  
« Last Edit: June 04, 2014, 10:36:42 PM by PPallotta »

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: How big a site do you need ?
« Reply #12 on: June 04, 2014, 07:34:31 PM »
Peter:

I think you would have found the Merion of 1980 a lot more to your liking than the Merion of today.  The fairways had been narrowed, but not to today's anorexic championship standard, and they were still quite natural in appearance.  The native plants in the bunkers made them feel much more natural than today's bunkers.  And you really do not feel constrained when you are out playing the course ... as I said, most people never notice how close together the fairways are, because the topography and the plantings are so well done.

All that said, the course was intended from Day 1 to be quite challenging, and there are more hazards than you will find on most other courses of its vintage.

Ed Brzezowski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How big a site do you need ?
« Reply #13 on: June 04, 2014, 08:02:43 PM »
Playing it the next three days, I guess I will get to see how close things are there. Waiting to see if some work was done after the Open to return it to its pre open form.
We have a pool and a pond, the pond would be good for you.

Kevin_D

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How big a site do you need ?
« Reply #14 on: June 04, 2014, 08:07:58 PM »
Peter, have you been to Merion or are you basing this on pictures/TV?

archie_struthers

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How big a site do you need ?
« Reply #15 on: June 04, 2014, 08:25:05 PM »
 8) ;)

As Tom stated the shape of the parcel matters as does elevation change within .  Merion is a classic example of layering , allowing elevation to act as a buffer between holes and thus squeeze more out of the land.

I never talked to Eric Bergstol about this but Bayonne G.C? Is another great example of using layering to get more golf on a smallish site . He did a wonderful job , and I truly don't know if it was just instinctive . Will ask him next time I see him .
« Last Edit: June 04, 2014, 08:57:54 PM by archie_struthers »

Connor Dougherty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How big a site do you need ?
« Reply #16 on: June 05, 2014, 04:15:02 AM »
Tom - re your post #5.

As an architect you respect the course very much. As a very casual/outside observer, I have to admit that I don't. And I think you have helped me understand why.

As a professional, you admire how well the routing puzzle was put together, and how tightly/smartly it was done given the limited space/acreage. But a hobbyist, what I see (as a result of this limited space) is a 'busy' design, and a 'cluttered' aesthetic, and an 'complicated' kind of architecture.  

Peter,
I think your comment sums up how a lot of people feel about a club that I caddied at a few summers back, Claremont. It's a MacKenzie course with plenty of character and an intricate routing. However, jammed into a 90 acre property, some decisions had to be made to fit the course into the property. To do this, the 4th and 5th holes are played across the 7th fairway and the 8th is a par 3 played over the 18th.

That alone is enough to turn people off about the golf course. I always appreciated the way it was routed to take advantage of its views on the front, and, as Archie mentioned, the layering of the back nine played a huge role in creating spacing on the back nine. There's no way in hell they could build something like it today unless it was a very small private club, but there's something incredibly charming about playing it. The green complexes are wonderful, and on a clear day, those views on the front are spectacular.
"The website is just one great post away from changing the world of golf architecture.  Make it." --Bart Bradley

John Connolly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How big a site do you need ?
« Reply #17 on: June 05, 2014, 08:14:42 AM »
So, how big a site do you need to build.........

a) a strategic 18 hole golf course ?

b) an 18 hole "championship" standard course minus the peripheral things you actually need to hold a championship ie. room for spectators, tented village etc. ?

c) smallest site possible for functional, good fun 18 hole course (say par 68 upwards) ?

Niall

Niall,

What is the difference between a strategic course and a championship course? Couldn't each allow for the other?
"And yet - and yet, this New Road will some day be the Old Road, too."

                                                      Neil Munroe (1863-1930)

BCowan

Re: How big a site do you need ?
« Reply #18 on: June 05, 2014, 08:28:57 AM »
Peter, have you been to Merion or are you basing this on pictures/TV?


Peter,

    Thanks for you post, you stated your opinion intelligently and probably better than some that have actually played the course.

side note,

   the original Inverness (Ohio) routing was on around 130 acres.  I wish i could of played it, i love compact courses.  Many criticize the back in forth routing on the back side even though the holes are much different in Character.   

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How big a site do you need ?
« Reply #19 on: June 05, 2014, 02:05:33 PM »
So, how big a site do you need to build.........

a) a strategic 18 hole golf course ?

b) an 18 hole "championship" standard course minus the peripheral things you actually need to hold a championship ie. room for spectators, tented village etc. ?

c) smallest site possible for functional, good fun 18 hole course (say par 68 upwards) ?

Niall

Niall,

What is the difference between a strategic course and a championship course? Couldn't each allow for the other?

John

I don't think there are any definitive criteria for what constitutes a "championship" course and a "strategic" course (or at least I hope there aren't) beyond the obvious challenging test of golf for "championship" and a course with options for a "strategic". Are the two mutually exclusive ? Not necessarily but when I referred to "championship" in my OP I was thinking generally about courses of say 7,000 plus yards and for startegic I was thinking of a course with wider than usual fairways as championed by the likes of Castle Stuart but typically not of the same length as a championship course.

That's what I mean't although not sure if Tom/Adrian took that as my meaning. As an aside I don't think you need to be super wide to be strategic but that perhaps is another discussion.

Niall

Ally Mcintosh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How big a site do you need ?
« Reply #20 on: June 05, 2014, 02:10:56 PM »
8) ;)

As Tom stated the shape of the parcel matters as does elevation change within .  Merion is a classic example of layering , allowing elevation to act as a buffer between holes and thus squeeze more out of the land.

I never talked to Eric Bergstol about this but Bayonne G.C? Is another great example of using layering to get more golf on a smallish site . He did a wonderful job , and I truly don't know if it was just instinctive . Will ask him next time I see him .

Archie,

I haven't seen Merion so can't comment but would love you to expand on your layering thoughts so I can understand the example fully... More often than not, large elevation changes eat up portions of the site... As a rule, the more movement in the land, the bigger the site needs to be...

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How big a site do you need ?
« Reply #21 on: June 05, 2014, 06:57:24 PM »
I always find it interesting when folks, especially archies, champion interior trees for safety reasons.  Has there ever been studies conducted to prove trees are a more effective saftey measure compared to allowing golfers the opportunity to see where there is danger?  People get hit through trees a lot...and never knew what hit them.  
  
I find it remarkable that Merion is on such a small footprint.  It never feels cramped, in fact it feels downright roomy.  While there are trees, they don't really effect lines of play and often don't effect recovery shots.  Writing this, it seems impossible  :o  I think Merion feels and is far more roomy than Worlington.  Don't get me wrong, Worly is a great design, but it is cramped and feels cramped.  I think there are 8 hold up spots on 9 holes, plus the road.  I don't know if the club had this in mind, but its a damn good thing its a 2ball joint because the course couldn't really handle 4ball play.  I reckon 36 players on the course playing as 2ball would make the course very crowded.  

I think Colt was probably as good as anybody in squeezing in layouts on tight properties.  Sure, sometimes there are tell-tale signs of running out of room and holes feeling awkward, but in the main its amazing to find out how little land his courses use.
 

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Malcolm Mckinnon

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How big a site do you need ?
« Reply #22 on: June 05, 2014, 09:39:20 PM »
Fyi, my home course, Springdale Golf Club in Princeton, NJ is routed over about 100 acres and plays to a par of 71 while never feeling particularly cramped except for some looming OB areas at the margins just like Merion.

The 18 hole re-routing of the original 1900-1902 Willie Dunn Jr. nine holer was achieved by a businessman/amateur architect Gerard Lambert in 1912-1914 and William Flynn built 18 new greens while keeping for the most part the original routing in 1926-1927.

Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How big a site do you need ?
« Reply #23 on: June 06, 2014, 04:00:34 AM »
Niall,

I have 66 acres and have a route for 18 holes that would give a par 69 and be safe. A lot is to do with the shape and contours of the land though and the fact that much of my bordering land is commercial forest.

Jon

archie_struthers

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How big a site do you need ?
« Reply #24 on: June 06, 2014, 08:06:22 AM »
 ;D :D


Ally

Don't know if. I can describe the layering theory quickly or without walking around with you there but will try.  

You can separate holes with elevation, not only physically but aesthetically.  At Merion, you play under and  then on top of various ridge lines that traverse the site. Holes 7and 8 provide separation in this manner from neighboring holes.  The third green also uses this to good effect.

I'm pressed for time here so will hopefully extrapolate later, but the 15th thru 17th holes  really work well for this reason . They seem far bigger than they would were it  a flat piece of ground . The  movement breaks your visual awareness of the neighboring holes . Sorry in on the run , maybe someone else familiar within the  site can chime in . However , it's a brilliant use of the 117  or so,acres . It never feels small or cramped "
« Last Edit: June 06, 2014, 08:08:52 AM by archie_struthers »