Shared fairways - Architectural merit and maintenance considerations

[John Connolly]

Most recently, I've enjoyed them at Shoreacres, Cal Club and Kingsbarn (the latter 2 courses employing "H-type" configurations). I liked the expanded sight lines and openness of the holes that employed them.

But are they architecturally a good idea?
Do they impart enhanced strategic options?
Just eye candy?

And lastly, what are the maintenance cost considerations? Let's say you're replacing some tree corridors along two "back and forth" holes. Cheaper or more expensive to maintain fairway in the new areas of connection?

[Jon Cavalier]

Like so many other aspects of GCA, I think it depends. For for an example of it done right, look no further than the quad-fairway at Old Town: (17, 8, 9, 18):





Probably the best example I've seen.

[Sean_A]

Jon

I spose you could say the Old Town is an example of shared fairways, but that is pushing it.  There is a ton of short grass, but guys shouldn't really be in the other "corridors" unless well out of position or right in front of 17/8 green.  That said, I do think it is worthwhile to keep the short grass for all four areas.

There is of course TOC with 1 and 18.  I think it works architecturally for a few reasons.  First, the OOB on either side can be completely taken out of play.  In the case of 18, the hole location can a difference to the drive line.  There are severa other shared fairways at TOC, but I think 1 & 18 is the best use unless space saving is the major consideration, it is also the most visually impressive shared fairway.

Much like TOC with space saving, Brancaster has a shared 1 & 18 fairway which is likely the only way the course works. 

One of the bestr shared fairways I have seen is 4 & 6 at the Sacred 9.  For such a wide space it plays remarkable "tight" and leaves the golfer wondering as to the best line...especially on #6.  Its one of the few holes which I really like the tree lined fairways because one knows he has to stay away from the right edge, but how far left is okay when taking into consideration the blind centreline bunkers and the 2nd shot?  Really clever and unusual design.

Ciao

 

[Ally Mcintosh]

The main three reasons against shared fairways:

1. Safety - You actually need a wider dual fairway than you do two separate, parallel holes. This to counter the extra run and angles that people will be getting from each tee.

2. Maintenance - As previously mentioned.

3. Scale - Sometimes it just doesn't look right when most of your fairway lines are tighter in nature. Can be done well but has to be in the right spot. Can also be done badly.

[Thomas Dai]

The saftety aspect is an interesting one.

Where I play most often the 1st and 18th fairways are parallel but in opposite directions with a line of tall trees in between, supposedly for safety reasons.

While playing the 18th last year a ball from the 1st tee landed at my feet. There was no warning shout of "fore". The chap did ultimately come over and apologise. "I would have shouted but I couldn't see you coz the trees were in the way". On the 1st-18th at TOC he'd have seen me and I'd have been looking out for him. Safer with trees or without? Depends on the circumstances?

atb

[Ally Mcintosh]

The saftety aspect is an interesting one.

Where I play most often the 1st and 18th fairways are parallel but in opposite directions with a line of tall trees in between, supposedly for safety reasons.

While playing the 18th last year a ball from the 1st tee landed at my feet. There was no warning shout of "fore". The chap did ultimately come over and apologise. "I would have shouted but I couldn't see you coz the trees were in the way". On the 1st-18th at TOC he'd have seen me and I'd have been looking out for him. Safer with trees or without? Depends on the circumstances?

atb

Hi Thomas,

The tree safety argument is one that always comes up and there are certainly different views.

But if you put that aside for a moment and take two holes that are parallel with centrelines 70 yards apart. If there is a 30 yard band of rough between the holes, the player on each tee is trying to steer away from it. If he fails and lands in the rough, the ball is going to land and stop quickly. There are very few shots that reach someone on the other fairway.

If however, that 30 yards of rough is cut as fairway, many tee shots will purposefully aim in that direction (or closer to it). In addition, the ball will land and bounce taking it even further off line. So for the same safety margins, you should really allow a greater distance between centrelines.

Now, I know that doesn't answer your tree query. I've mixed feelings on that one.

[Thomas Dai]

I know where your coming from Ally. Maybe no real answer.

What about shared fairways with some kind of centre line fairway pot bunkering, generally akin to say like those on the 9th at TOC?

atb

[J_ Crisham]

Works really well at Flossmoor between 16 and 17. If you can fly a left fairway bunker on 16 you have a nice angle to approach the green from  the 17th fairway. It has a really nice look- as memory serves it even stretches across to part of 18 fairway.

[Sean_A]

I am with you David; trees for safety is very dubious.  I would much rather see the golfers around me rather than trust to a line of trees.  I have never seen anybody hit who could see the action...but I have seen guys hit who had no idea what was coming.  I don't like the trees at Malvern dividing 1 & 18...and a few other water holes.  In fact, Malvern needs a ton of trees coming out 

I also think the hazard in the middle of a shared fairway is reasonably popular these days...if a shared fairway is on the cards.  That is exactly what the Sacred 9 has between 4 and 6. 

Ciao

[John Connolly]

What about maintenance costs? It would seem to be more expensive but significantly so?

[John Connolly]

Sean and Thomas,

Shoreacreas has such a bunker series between 9 and 18 - just a great feature.

[John Connolly]

Bumped ....

One question remaining on this subject for me is cost. I'm assuming it's almost always going to cost more due to initial sodding and then subsequent fairway maintenance but I don't know if it's substantial or not. Thoughts on cost?

[Tom_Doak]

Bumped ....

One question remaining on this subject for me is cost. I'm assuming it's almost always going to cost more due to initial sodding and then subsequent fairway maintenance but I don't know if it's substantial or not. Thoughts on cost?

It doesn't necessarily cost much more to maintain.  With big fairway units, one crew member can just keep mowing, instead of lining up again to do another fairway, and someone else coming back to mow the rough in between.

In some places, you'll have to sod, but in other places you can just mow the rough shorter and shorter until you take it to fairway height, and overseed for purity, if necessary.  With bermuda or fescue fairways, you don't have to do much at all.

[Terry Lavin]

The restoration of the shared fairway at Shoreacres (Doak recommendation IIRC) is at once simple and brilliant.  With the tree removal to the west, one can stand at the juncture of these two fairways and look west and not see a tree until the fence bordering Sheridan Road.  Looking east, you get a nice teaser glimpse of Lake Michigan in the distance.  Neither hole is particularly interesting or remarkable on its own merit, IMHO, but the shared fairway and tree removal really kick up the visual interest.

Another interesting Chicagoland restoration that included a shared fairway feature is Ray Hearn's work at Flossmoor where there is shared fairway on the final three holes.  The neat thing here is that the new feature was accomplished by removing dozens of willow trees and other unworthy species, which had previously provided three boring corridors.  Now, one can sit on the patio with a beverage and regard the lovely, uncluttered view of these three very different and very interesting golf holes.

[Mark_Fine]

We just restored one.  Don't forget about added irrigation costs!

[Dunlop_White]

We have plenty of shared fairways at OTC. In fact, one swath of fairway now connects six holes successively without interruption of rough. Thus, we've transitioned from 35 acres of fairway to 65 acres and counting. More conversion is ahead. [green expansion and tee expansion was also significant]

For us, it necessiteated a reallocation of equipment -- and in some cases -- additional units. We also found that some additional labor was required. It’s a fairly simple model — the shorter the grass cut, the more often you need to cut it. We cut greens daily, tees and fairways 3 times per week, and rough once a week -- max. If you increase the square footage and acreage of short grass, at the expense of longer grass, you usually need additional equipment and manpower to maintain it, because of the frequency it needs to be cut. In short, we needed to maintain much larger areas at Old Town at a much greater frequency.

There's an increase in the line items for sand (for topdressing fairways) and chemicals (for fertility management) also.