[Patrick_Mucci]

to rout and design a golf course when the club house site has been predetermined, or is it easier to rout and design a golf course and locate the clubhouse when you have the entire property at your disposal ?


When you have the entire property at your disposal, do you have a preference regarding where to locate the clubhouse ?

[Tom_Doak]

It depends on what you mean by "easier".  If the clubhouse site is predetermined, then you will have a lot less options for how to route the course.  You'll probably be able to sort through things and get to a final routing faster.  But you may not get as good a result as if you had a clean slate.


The only general preference I have about a clubhouse is that you shouldn't put it on the west side of the site if possible, to avoid playing into the morning and evening sun.  I actually sort of prefer locating the clubhouse near a boundary instead of in the middle of the site; it's easier to hide the parking and infrastructure from the golf course that way.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

Agree with TD.  Clubhouses are best from 12 noon to 6P if you visualize the site as a clock face, for sun reasons. 

I always wondered why Ross had so many corner clubhouse sites. If you think where the area was developed and where the utilities probably were, it was a frugal, common sense thing to put them where he put them.  Also, saved the cost of a long entry road, which is rarely necessary unless its a 36 hole course, or part of a housing tract.  Lastly, if you think about golfer circulation, it is most logical to go from the road, to parking, to clubhouse to first tee.  It is usually, not always, a small irritation to have some other arrangement.   All in addition to Tom's point of not having to hide them from a 360 degree view inside the course.  And, up north, to avoid the super having to plow his way in during winter.

As to what is easier, frankly, while TD and a few others once wrote about designing the golf course first without regard to the CH location, I rarely have had the luxury of unlimited clubhouse sites.  For reasons mentioned above, it usually comes down to just one or a few logical locations.  I hate to spend a million or more of the owners budget just to get to some ideal clubhouse site, but once in a while, it is the preferred design, just not often. I would rather keep it for the golf course.

So, most of the time, I do end up siting the clubhouse first.

[Wayne_Kozun]

IANAA but I kind of like courses where you have to drive through the course to get to the clubhouse and parking lot as it really whets your appetite for the round ahead.  A few courses like this here in Ontario are Toronto GC, Redtail and Devil's Paintbrush.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayne,
 
Wouldn't that make routing the course much more difficult ?

[Wayne_Kozun]

Wayne,
 
Wouldn't that make routing the course much more difficult ?

A bit more difficult as you have to take the path of the entrance road into account. But all of these properties I mentioned are on fairly large plots of land.

[Guy Nicholson]

IANAA but I kind of like courses where you have to drive through the course to get to the clubhouse and parking lot as it really whets your appetite for the round ahead.  A few courses like this here in Ontario are Toronto GC, Redtail and Devil's Paintbrush.

Kawartha is another good one. I actually like how the 17th hole runs along the entrance road, although it wouldn't be everyone's cup of tea.

[Mark Pritchett]

Also interested to know thoughts on the routing process if there is a mandate for the nines to return to the clubhouse or not. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Again, usually a given. Robert Dedman of Club Corp always said you got 3500 more rounds a year out of returning nines, and he wasn't going to give them up without returning nines, so they make sense in almost all cases.  You may have a spectacular site sometimes that discourages or even a site that prohibits it, but otherwise, pretty standard.

The only effect is to find a clubhouse site that can accommodated 4 holes returning, not to mention a nice range close by, usually in an open area because on a mixed open/wooded site, it seems a shame to rip out trees for a range.

[Tom_Doak]

You have many more options for the routing if the client is not so focused on two loops of nine.  Stonewall is a great example: on both courses I found the routing worked better if the hole coming back to the house was the 8th, and it worked out that the 9th is a par 3, so people starting on the back can play it or save it til the end as they choose.

Pacific Dunes returns at #7 and we felt the experience was just better that way ... we could have re numbered to come back at 9 instead, but they really don't do 9-hole green fees at a destination like Bandon.

Rock Creek and The Renaissance Club are others where I'm glad I had flexibility.  From where they wanted the clubhouse, you couldn't get out to the best of the land and linger there if you had to get back by 9.

[Sean_A]

Unless a facility plans to do 9 hole rates I actually prefer a longer and shorter loop to the house...say 4-5 holes looping back to the house.  This gives at least three distinct options from the house depending on the time available for the golfers.  Almost anything is better than an equal 9 holes each side running from the house...never understood why that configuration was seen as ideal for a private members' club.


Ciao

[Adrian_Stiff]

Equal nines is ideal for all the commercial reasons, some people usually members just fancy half a round, even better if other holes come back too so people can play 4 or 13. It is a fairly big minus IMO if the nines don't come back but as TD eluded if it is a special property it matters much less since the plusses outweigh. I think all golf architects try and get equal returns. Clubhouse position can sometimes render it impossible and you need no more than 1 seconds thought on the matter.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean,

Your arrangement presumes that the course is empty and solely for your use.

Unless a facility plans to do 9 hole rates I actually prefer a longer and shorter loop to the house...say 4-5 holes looping back to the house.  This gives at least three distinct options from the house depending on the time available for the golfers.  Almost anything is better than an equal 9 holes each side running from the house...never understood why that configuration was seen as ideal for a private members' club.


Ciao

[Doug Siebert]

Equal nines is ideal for all the commercial reasons, some people usually members just fancy half a round, even better if other holes come back too so people can play 4 or 13. It is a fairly big minus IMO if the nines don't come back but as TD eluded if it is a special property it matters much less since the plusses outweigh. I think all golf architects try and get equal returns. Clubhouse position can sometimes render it impossible and you need no more than 1 seconds thought on the matter.

You don't need to have it really routed so the 4th green is at the clubhouse for instance, just having tees adjacent to each other that allow skipping a few holes is enough. For instance at the U of I's Finkbine course, you could play 1-7-8-9 if you want a shorter front nine and 10-11-12-16-17-18 or 10-11-12-13-14-18 for a shorter back - in the first two cases it is actually a shorter walk from green to tee for the shortcut than going to the proper tee, in the latter it is only an extra 30 yards or so.

[Phil Young]

In reading through this thread that deals with clubhouse location and how it affects course routing it seems that almost every comment dealt with only routings that return to the clubhouse mid round, whether it be with split nines or a few holes less.

What about courses that are routed after the clubhouse site is known and that don't return to the clubhouse other than the 18th hole. That is why Bethpage came to mind.

The 9th hole of the original Lenox Hills course as designed by Devereaux Emmet is today's 12th, about as far away from the clubhouse (It was left of where today's 3rd green/4th tee is as the 4th hole was the original 1st). When Tilly redesigned it to fit into the new clubhouse site only the 1st & 18th holes came there.
 
The three new courses all only had the 1st & 18th holes next to the clubhouse with 9th hole about as far away from the clubhouse as one could get on that course.

Then came the 5th course, the Yellow. Made up of most of the original Blue course split with 11 on the Yellow and 7 on the new blue, these  new courses would have their 9th holes end at the clubhouse (parking lot) and so the ability for a 9-hole round at Bethpage was now available.

All of the above might mean nothing in the discussion, but it was obvious that the idea of a 9-hole round or leaving the course after 4-7 holes wasn't given any consideration in the original routings and design...

[Sean_A]

Sean,

Your arrangement presumes that the course is empty and solely for your use.

Unless a facility plans to do 9 hole rates I actually prefer a longer and shorter loop to the house...say 4-5 holes looping back to the house.  This gives at least three distinct options from the house depending on the time available for the golfers.  Almost anything is better than an equal 9 holes each side running from the house...never understood why that configuration was seen as ideal for a private members' club.


Ciao

Pat


Yes, I am very keen on multiple and varying loops which can afford golfers the opportunity to play less than 18 or 9 holes without resorting to a cart.  As you well know, many private clubs are not terribly crowded for a signifcant percentage of daylight hours. In which case, why not offer two distinct loop lengths rather than two nines?   


Ciao

[Bill_McBride]

Cuscowilla is one course that features really good short loops emanating from the clubhouse.   If I remember correctly, 1-6, 7-9, 10-14 and 15-18 are all separate loops - which could be whiskey loops with any luck!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean,

Your arrangement presumes that the course is empty and solely for your use.

Unless a facility plans to do 9 hole rates I actually prefer a longer and shorter loop to the house...say 4-5 holes looping back to the house.  This gives at least three distinct options from the house depending on the time available for the golfers.  Almost anything is better than an equal 9 holes each side running from the house...never understood why that configuration was seen as ideal for a private members' club.

Pat


Yes, I am very keen on multiple and varying loops which can afford golfers the opportunity to play less than 18 or 9 holes without resorting to a cart.  As you well know, many private clubs are not terribly crowded for a signifcant percentage of daylight hours. In which case, why not offer two distinct loop lengths rather than two nines?   

Sean,


Because the overwhelming majority of golfers want to play 18 holes and if you give a priority to golfers playing 4 or 5 holes, you'll create a logistical chaos, not to mention a palace revolt.

[Sean_A]

Sean,

Your arrangement presumes that the course is empty and solely for your use.

Unless a facility plans to do 9 hole rates I actually prefer a longer and shorter loop to the house...say 4-5 holes looping back to the house.  This gives at least three distinct options from the house depending on the time available for the golfers.  Almost anything is better than an equal 9 holes each side running from the house...never understood why that configuration was seen as ideal for a private members' club.

Pat


Yes, I am very keen on multiple and varying loops which can afford golfers the opportunity to play less than 18 or 9 holes without resorting to a cart.  As you well know, many private clubs are not terribly crowded for a signifcant percentage of daylight hours. In which case, why not offer two distinct loop lengths rather than two nines?   

Sean,


Because the overwhelming majority of golfers want to play 18 holes and if you give a priority to golfers playing 4 or 5 holes, you'll create a logistical chaos, not to mention a palace revolt.

Pat

A completely moronic post.  Looping back to the house after 4-5 holes (or even after 14 or 15 which in some ways is better than after 4 or 5) in no way compromises the "overwhelming majority of golfers who want to play 18 holes".  If you are gonna talk rubbish make it good rubbish.   


Ciao 

[Ian Andrew]

Because the overwhelming majority of golfers want to play 18 holes and if you give a priority to golfers playing 4 or 5 holes, you'll create a logistical chaos, not to mention a palace revolt.

Pat,

We all would prefer to, but Pat I've played more 9's than 18's this year because I don't have the time.
I play late, play fast, and "try" to make nine many evenings
Often I walk in from the 7th because the light has gone.

That's the reality for many of us that you don't face or seem to understand.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Because the overwhelming majority of golfers want to play 18 holes and if you give a priority to golfers playing 4 or 5 holes, you'll create a logistical chaos, not to mention a palace revolt.

Pat,

We all would prefer to, but Pat I've played more 9's than 18's this year because I don't have the time.
I play late, play fast, and "try" to make nine many evenings
Often I walk in from the 7th because the light has gone.

That's the reality for many of us that you don't face or seem to understand.


Ian,

Why not state that you try to play nine by teeing off at midnight ?

Your response is one of the most moronic responses of the month.

Teeing off at 6, 7 or 8pm is not where there's a log jam on the first tee.

The "reality" that you don't think I face, I face on a constant basis.  I rarely play 18 on weekends and only occasionally during the week.

Most of my golf is late in the day and restricted to nine holes or less with my son.

But, at those times of day, few are competing for tee times.

Try your logic on a Saturday, Sunday or Holiday from 7:00am to 3:00pm when the preponderance of golfers want to play 18 holes.

I can just see the starter telling waiting foursomes that another foursome is going to tee off before them, but only to play 4 or 5 holes.   Or, that a gap in starting times is being created so that a group of golfers can be inserted on the 6th tee so that they can play 4 holes.

If anyone is out of touch with "reality", it's you....... and Sean

[Sean_A]

Because the overwhelming majority of golfers want to play 18 holes and if you give a priority to golfers playing 4 or 5 holes, you'll create a logistical chaos, not to mention a palace revolt.

Pat,

We all would prefer to, but Pat I've played more 9's than 18's this year because I don't have the time.
I play late, play fast, and "try" to make nine many evenings
Often I walk in from the 7th because the light has gone.

That's the reality for many of us that you don't face or seem to understand.


Ian,

Why not state that you try to play nine by teeing off at midnight ?

Your response is one of the most moronic responses of the month.

Teeing off at 6, 7 or 8pm is not where there's a log jam on the first tee.

The "reality" that you don't think I face, I face on a constant basis.  I rarely play 18 on weekends and only occasionally during the week.

Most of my golf is late in the day and restricted to nine holes or less with my son.

But, at those times of day, few are competing for tee times.

Try your logic on a Saturday, Sunday or Holiday from 7:00am to 3:00pm when the preponderance of golfers want to play 18 holes.

I can just see the starter telling waiting foursomes that another foursome is going to tee off before them, but only to play 4 or 5 holes.   Or, that a gap in starting times is being created so that a group of golfers can be inserted on the 6th tee so that they can play 4 holes.

If anyone is out of touch with "reality", it's you....... and Sean

Is your brain addled?  You just make up bs as you go along.  Get a grip man, settle back and make some sense.


Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean,
 
Here's what YOU typed.
 
"A completely moronic post.  Looping back to the house after 4-5 holes (or even after 14 or 15 which in some ways is better than after 4 or 5) in no way compromises the "overwhelming majority of golfers who want to play 18 holes".  If you are gonna talk rubbish make it good rubbish."
 
Try getting a tee time on the weekend when you tell the starter that you're just going to play 4 or 5 holes and then crash back at the nearby clubhouse.
 
The motivation behind your routing arrangement is......... moronic.
 
The land, not the convenience to members who only want to play a few holes, should dictate the routing.

[Sean_A]

Sean,
 
Here's what YOU typed.
 
"A completely moronic post.  Looping back to the house after 4-5 holes (or even after 14 or 15 which in some ways is better than after 4 or 5) in no way compromises the "overwhelming majority of golfers who want to play 18 holes".  If you are gonna talk rubbish make it good rubbish."
 
Try getting a tee time on the weekend when you tell the starter that you're just going to play 4 or 5 holes and then crash back at the nearby clubhouse.
 
The motivation behind your routing arrangement is......... moronic.
 
The land, not the convenience to members who only want to play a few holes, should dictate the routing.

Pat


You will never get it because you don't think properly.  Engage your brain before you next post.


Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean,

If it wasn't for Woody Platt, nobody would listen to you.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()