[Mike Hendren]

Are so many of these sites no-brainers, or do owners/developers of such sites recognize they warrant top notch architects?

[Peter Pallotta]

From what I read, Mike, it is either a safety net or a noose. The architect at the top of his game and looking for a Top 10 has in the sea a safety net that ensures he doesn't fall below an 8; the architect who hasn't changed with the times or who tries to mail it in might find the critics using the sea as the dreaded noose-of-missed-opportunity.

[Joe Hancock]

Mike,

Interesting take. I would say the architect absolutely has to be top notch to get the most out of a seaside site;

-knowing how to interact with the views without it becoming the sole purpose of the round or character of the course
-knowing how to design bunkers to withstand the winds that are always prevalent
-knowing how to incorporate strategy into the inherent width necessary,due to wind, to keep golfers on the course
-knowing how to play by the rules of the ever-restrictive governing agencies

I'm sure there is other reasons, but it is far from a no-brainer.

[Sean Ogle]

I think the two courses at Half Moon Bay are a perfect example of this. Huge potential in the sites, but aside from the phenomenal 18th on the Old Course - neither course got anywhere close to their potential.


With such a spectacular location, expectations are also raised - so if you don't deliver, then the golfer will be quite a bit more upset by the disappointing seaside course, than they would have been playing a mediocre landlocked course.

[Tom_Doak]

I am not sure what you mean by "safety net," Michael.


From the client's perspective, buying seaside land is a major investment in the quality of the finished course.  After they've made that investment, they could take two views:  that they don't need a big-name architect because they've already given whoever they pick a big head start [see:  Bandon Dunes], or, they've got a chance to do something great so they'd better hire the best in the business.  Since seaside land is [except in very remote places] more expensive than architectural fees, most clients go the latter route.


From the architect's perspective, working by the seaside usually means great expectations, but it also means you get the benefits not only of good views, but sandy soils and a windy locale, so +++.  That's an opportunity few would pass up.  A safety net?  I don't know.  Contrary to Sean's post, there really aren't many people away from this web site who take the time to sort out what architects failed to live up to the potential of a particular site.  I can think of several modern seaside courses that I don't think lived up to their potential, but nearly all of them are still in some top 100 list anyway.  And to Sean's specific example, Half Moon Bay didn't cost Arthur Hills any work. 


So maybe you're right, that they provide some sort of guarantee, but what they really provide is a great opportunity, that it's still up to the architect to make the most of, just like any other project.

[Dave McCollum]

I don't know of many examples of blown opportunities on seaside sites.  I did play a course many years ago called, I think, Sand Pines on the Oregon Coast that won a "Best New Course" award.  At the time, I liked it for all the wrong reasons (mostly personal ignorance).  However, it was near the coast, built partially in something like the a sand dunes national monument and also an impressive Douglas Fir forest.  There was some kind of massive pond on the finishing holes.  The group I was with thought it was great and quite demanding from the tips.  However, given a bit of continuing education, it now seems like colossal missed opportunity when compared to Bandon and other coastal sites.  At least that guy, a prominent national architect, seemed to not to take advantage of the opportunity.  The safety net apparently isn't automatic or given.       

[Dave McCollum]

Sorry.  Did a search and learned Sandpines has been discussed before my time here on the discussion group.  Didn't read them all, just enough to know my previous comments were hardly original.  Maybe I should be encouraged that I've learned something, or perhaps, been converted to the conformity of group think.  I just remember playing Sandpines all day and staying in beachfront condo for a 100 bucks a day with some food.  Pretty sweet until I realized what could have been.       

[Sean_A]

This business of the course meeting the potential of the site is a slippery slope.  Its very easy for the layman such as myself to fall into the trap of comparing based on the final product when what is really called for is a comparison based on the designs...meaning that all the particulars of the project are known and understood. 
I am also conscious that a certain aesthetic style of course could easily become dominant if we are comparing courses.  I think we need sea side courses to be individualistic while remaining "of the sand".  This is one of the problems when just a few developers lead the charge...courses can look very similar.  Bottom line, we need to be broad minded even if we have preferences if only for the sake of having diverse sea side courses. 


The only modern links I can think of which really disappoints is Hillside.


Ciao

[Tommy Williamsen]

Measuring up to the site is not a particularly helpful way to rate a golf course. Old Head is a good example. It may be the most stunning site for golf on the planet. I have heard, and said, that the course doesn't match the potential. After thinking about it I have to ask, "Can it?" How does one measure the potential. The Cashen course, Half Moon Bay (California), and Bay Harbor at Boyne all seem to fall short of "what might have been" but nonetheless are pretty good golf.

[JJShanley]

The only modern links I can think of which really disappoints is Hillside.

The Lancashire Hillside? 

[Sean_A]

The only modern links I can think of which really disappoints is Hillside.

The Lancashire Hillside?

Si

Tommy...Cashen is a very tough site so I think they did okay there if completely refiguring the land wasn't an option.  Its cart golf for sure, but there are a lot of very good shots. I agree with Tom, to compensate for the roller coaster ride, the greens could be more forgiving.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Measuring up to the site is not a particularly helpful way to rate a golf course. Old Head is a good example. It may be the most stunning site for golf on the planet. I have heard, and said, that the course doesn't match the potential. After thinking about it I have to ask, "Can it?" How does one measure the potential. The Cashen course, Half Moon Bay (California), and Bay Harbor at Boyne all seem to fall short of "what might have been" but nonetheless are pretty good golf.

Tommy:


I agree with your premise, if not necessarily with your last sentence.


I happen to have worked on the routing for Old Head at one point, and I also played around with the routing for the Cashen course to see if I could figure out something better, when Ballybunion were considering a major remodel.  In neither case could I come up with something that I thought was significantly better.  Both sites are quite small and packed together, so there isn't room for 100 different variations on the plan.  But I'm a professional, and even I didn't understand that until I worked on the plan for a while.


That said, I think the weakness of both courses is in the shaping of the greens and the surrounding hazards.  The Cashen, with a good set of greens and approaches that received the shot, would be a much better course.  The fact that you say it's still pretty good is maybe the "safety net" than Michael H spoke of.

[JJShanley]

The only modern links I can think of which really disappoints is Hillside.

The Lancashire Hillside?

Si

I didn't realize that was modern.  I see the club dates back to 1911.  Did they rebuild or relocate?  Or do you consider 1911 modern.  I suppose it's younger than most great British links courses.

[Sean_A]

The only modern links I can think of which really disappoints is Hillside.

The Lancashire Hillside?

Si

I didn't realize that was modern.  I see the club dates back to 1911.  Did they rebuild or relocate?  Or do you consider 1911 modern.  I suppose it's younger than most great British links courses.

The back 9 is a 70s design...so I guess its a mix.  The course feels very modern to me and that isn't a compliment.




Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

The Cashen, with a good set of greens and approaches that received the shot, would be a much better course.  The fact that you say it's still pretty good is maybe the "safety net" than Michael H spoke of.

I was recently told that all the greens on the Cashen are to be re-done over this coming winter. Not sure if any of the approaches will be re-done as well.


I actually quite like some of the existing more severe greens. A real challenge in shot making and course management - once you know where your going that is. Sometimes you have to know when to take preventative rather than after the event medicine. I can understand that in severe weather though, some of them might be a wee bit OTT.

atb


atb

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()