[Ira Fishman]

Ira,

Native landscape gives the site its character. It determines the routing, it helps give the golf course a sense of time.  It helps me set the stage for what the presentation of the golf course will feel like.  Its what some of  the 70s-80s and early 90s golf course sites forgot to consider.  Everyone felt that you could just re-landscape, what they forgot to consider is the amount of time it would take the golf course to Age.

On my website I discuss,


TREAD LIGHTLY...

I consider myself very lucky to have worked on the sites I have.  With that luck I have come to understand not to destroy the landforms during construction.  I value every feature big or small. I realize from the very start, it is important to evaluate what is worth preserving and what can be transformed into something more usable.

"It starts from the very first day you step foot on the land.  Recognize the important features, preserve when possible, and restore when applicable.  It is the key to maintaining that natural look"

I could write a chapter on the importance of  the landscape as it relates to the golf course.  At  Pacific Dunes  during construction I flagged areas where traffic was allowed to travel. If you went out of bounds we were going to have a discussion.  That's how much I value the Landscape.

Make sense?

Jim,


Yes and no. I understand the philosophy of design that places a premium on not altering the Native Landscape. However, I still struggle to think about how to look at a piece of land to know if it is a good place to build a course. Pacific Dunes provides a good example of my struggle. It is one of the courses that I have had the good fortune to play. But if hypothetically it were not on the bluffs over the ocean, I would have a difficult time looking at the land itself to say ahah what a great site for a great course. Should I be looking for interesting green sites? enough elevation changes to make the course varied? landforms that lend themselves to bunkers? something else?


Regarding another course with which you are so successfully familiar: legend has it that Marion Hollins thought the land for Pasatiempo was a terrific place to build a course. And clearly she had a track record of having a good eye. Yet, Tom Doak started a most educational thread not too long ago asking the question whether the site has too much elevation change to be a truly great site. I loved my one play at Pasatiempo, but I have no idea how to look at the land the way Ms. Hollins or Mr. Doak do.


In any event, I greatly appreciate your patience in trying to help me overcome my visual and spatial and imagination limitations. I doubt I will ever have the resources to make this more than a theoretical albeit most engaging exercise.


Ira

[Ronald Montesano]

What waterside piece of land would fail? If one gets the clearance to build alongside the water, how can it possibly be a poor piece of land?


I would think that the demands placed by the developer, on use of any piece of land, would be the tipping point.


Escarpment land, where rock must be blasted away, would qualify as poor land for me. Swampland that must be drained (sorry, Lido) and brutalized, would also qualify as poor land for me.


Ok, Max Homa, analyze my swing ... oh, wait, #NotTwitter      OK, practicing architects, agree/disagree?

[SL_Solow]

Ron, putting aside any feelings about the ownership, pro or con, how does the course now known as Trump National Los Angeles, originally designed by Pete Dye, fit your statement about a seaside site?  There are other less than inspiring courses built with ocean views.  A waste of good sites or something else?

[MCirba]

This is a very good thread so far, thanks.


Carry on.

[V. Kmetz]

Ron, putting aside any feelings about the ownership, pro or con, how does the course now known as Trump National Los Angeles, originally designed by Pete Dye, fit your statement about a seaside site?  There are other less than inspiring courses built with ocean views.  A waste of good sites or something else?

SLS...weren't two holes sliding into the sea BEFORE it was branded as it is?


Anyways yes, you've managed to pick on one course whose seaside location was/is not advanatged...but RM seems correct to me; I don't know 5 seaside/waterside links that rate a Doak 4 or lower.

[Thomas Dai]

What waterside piece of land would fail? If one gets the clearance to build alongside the water, how can it possibly be a poor piece of land?
I would think that the demands placed by the developer, on use of any piece of land, would be the tipping point.
Escarpment land, where rock must be blasted away, would qualify as poor land for me. Swampland that must be drained (sorry, Lido) and brutalized, would also qualify as poor land for me.
Ok, Max Homa, analyze my swing ... oh, wait, #NotTwitter      OK, practicing architects, agree/disagree?

Reckon that if the whole area of links at St Andrews was completely virgin, no-golf land, the first place a developer would these days want to develop would be along the seashore not where TOC is located.
Atb

[Tom_Doak]

Reckon that if the whole area of links at St Andrews was completely virgin, no-golf land, the first place a developer would these days want to develop would be along the seashore not where TOC is located.
Atb

Undoubtedly.  Another example of that is Yeamans Hall -- every time I look at the map, I think that if we had a piece of land like that today, we'd be fighting over how many holes we could play along the river.  But the Olmstead Brothers, who did the land plan, only allowed Raynor to come down to the river at the 8th green, and play back away from it at the 9th tee, with the rest of the riverfront used for housing.


(It still turned out pretty well.  As did The Old Course!)

[Tom_Doak]

I understand the philosophy of design that places a premium on not altering the Native Landscape. However, I still struggle to think about how to look at a piece of land to know if it is a good place to build a course. Pacific Dunes provides a good example of my struggle. It is one of the courses that I have had the good fortune to play. But if hypothetically it were not on the bluffs over the ocean, I would have a difficult time looking at the land itself to say ahah what a great site for a great course. Should I be looking for interesting green sites? enough elevation changes to make the course varied? landforms that lend themselves to bunkers? something else?


Regarding another course with which you are so successfully familiar: legend has it that Marion Hollins thought the land for Pasatiempo was a terrific place to build a course. And clearly she had a track record of having a good eye. Yet, Tom Doak started a most educational thread not too long ago asking the question whether the site has too much elevation change to be a truly great site. I loved my one play at Pasatiempo, but I have no idea how to look at the land the way Ms. Hollins or Mr. Doak do.


In any event, I greatly appreciate your patience in trying to help me overcome my visual and spatial and imagination limitations. I doubt I will ever have the resources to make this more than a theoretical albeit most engaging exercise.

Ira:


You'll want to get my new book, then.   


There is no simple answer to your question.  A site can have great landscape character and great features, but still fall short of being a great course, because there is just no good way to puzzle together 18 outstanding holes without a bunch of ridiculous cart rides from one to the next.  That's rare, but it does happen.  All we can say when we look at a site like Pacific Dunes the first time is that it has the right stuff . . . but it's not guaranteed to be great until you solve the puzzle.


Of course, it gets easier to identify the things that are going to screw up the puzzle, the more puzzles you do.  When I would give a topo map to my associates to play around with, they would sometimes come up with a cool hole that I would immediately dismiss, because I knew they couldn't get back out of where it had taken them.


One course where I beat my head against the wall trying to find a better solution is Sandpiper, just north of Santa Barbara.  It's got just as much frontage on the ocean as Pacific Dunes does, and better weather, but it's nowhere near the golf course.  A lot of that is because the inland parts are not beautiful sand dunes as in Oregon, but the coastal holes do not get as much bang out of the coastline as you'd expect.  I tried for quite a while to find a better solution, but eventually gave up on it.  Maybe someone smarter than me will figure it out someday, but then they would have to get the California Coastal Commission to say okay to it.




P.S.  I am famously quiet the first time I go have a look at a new site, and I've heard that Bill Coore is, too.  I suspect it's for the same reason -- that we are trying to see if there's a routing problem out there we are not going to be able to solve.  It's not that we take a beautiful site for granted, but when the first question you're asked is whether this site could become one of the top 50 courses in the world, you have to look for the things that are going to get in the way.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Are rumpled fairways really more expensive to maintain?

Why don’t architects angle greens to the fairway more frequently?

How does one learn to look at a piece of raw land and have a clue if it would make for a good course?

Rumpled fairways can be more sustainable to maintain due to improved surface drainage
I'd ask why don't architects have the green surface (3D) tilt away, or not directly, from the line of play more frequently
The better the router of golf courses the more likely they can make a good course out of almost any property - as long as it isn't too severely sloped - the greater restriction is the size of the property, geometry, environmental restrictions, client and budget.
cheers

[JC Urbina]

Ira,

The two pieces of property you are using for examples  are such different animals.

But let me try and pick out some highlights.

Pasatiempo, as far as the property goes, better the most.  I can assume that Marion Holllins saw the land and said, Great Southern Exposure, I can see my beloved Monterary Peninsula from here , it has Ocean Views and the land is sloped from top to bottom, great piece of land for  golf and homes, everyone has an ocean view. Closer to San Francisco.

Now, what does the land planner think, Olmstead brothers tells owner, yes we can lay this development out for homes and a golf course.  Road enters from  below with easy access to local Santa Cruz community. Has good drainage ways, land is bordered by canyons on both sides which gives it exclusivity, in its early formation only  one road in and out and last but not least good views from Clubhouse and golf course.

Then some guy named Mackenzie who happens to know a guy named Hunter show up on site.  They tell the owner they can make it work, they work out the details with the land planner  forming ideas on how to make this gof course work with the homes. Mackenzie finds the perfect routing using the Barrancas to their maximum.  His two loops of nine use the terrain to fullest. the walk seems easy even though you work your way up a pretty big hillside.  Poof, a majestic  golf course is born, in fact so good Mr. Mackenzie ends up living there and meeting Bobby Jones and secures his next golf desgin commission, Augusta National.

Spending over 20 years now restoring Pasatiempo has left an indeliable impression on me.



So much different then when I first had a chance to walk the land in Oregon, now known as Pacific Dunes.


To be continued.

[Peter Pallotta]

Very nice post, JC.
What comes across so clearly is your love for Pasatiempo -- one that has developed and deepened over the many years you've spent there.
I forgot who said it, but there's an old line that goes something like this:
"Love is not blind; it sees everything, very clearly -- but, being love, it overlooks much".
That's not to say that Pasatiempo doesn't 'deserve' or 'merit' your love (I wouldn't know, and you'd know a thousand times better than me). It's just to say that I think, with a good course, the more we give it the more it gives back to us in return.
That might even be the very definition/description of a "good course", i.e. one that, over time, becomes more and more lovable.   

[JC Urbina]

Ira,


So imagine with me this site that Marion Hollins picks for a golf course and home sites is void of any sand dunes but convinces everyone around her,  it"s a great site.


Now its up to Mackenzie and Hunter to gather information and determine the properties qualities. 


Topography - topo maps confirm to Mackenzie and Hunter that over 200 feet of elevation exists from entrance down below  to the highest point of the proposed land.  Room between golf holes with flat but nice undulations available to use within the proposed ground.  Wonderful landfoms within the proposed corridor of golf, hill behind # 3 green, adjacent to # 2 fairway and hilltop for # 4 tee shot looking towards Pacific Ocean, slightly uphill tee shot to #7 green site which use to have views of the Ocean  and 8 tee for downhill shot to green. Narrow canyon  tee shot on # 6.  Another Hill top for use on # 1 tee, 9 green, 10 tee 18 green.  last but not least final hilltop for # 11 green and #12 tee once again providing wonderfull views of the deep blue sea..  Two well positioned rises for up and overs on # 10 and # 16 fairways. This land affords constant views of the Pacific Ocean no matter your location on the property.  Proposed Hollins House has uninterrupted views of San Diego 


Soil - a mixture of sand stone, clay, organic material and top soil exist on the property.


Surrounding vistas - Excellent views abound,ocean to the south, south east, south west,  mountains to the north, deep canyons, wonderful barrancas throughout property.  Wonderful gorges exist for their viewing pleasure., crossing in front of 10 tee and 18 green, just spectacular.




Owners intent - A mix of  homes, with access roads intertwined in between the golf.




Native landscape - Wonderful trees along the gorges  with California native grasses sprinkled over entire hillsides.  Native flowers and shrubs in different eco systems dotted amongst the landforms. 






Available land - A mix golf and home sites that needs to be dispersed between the flanking canyons.  Not much room to finagle away from the gorges and drop-offs.  The golf course must follow the drainage patterns.






Environmental concerns -  ?




Regional location - South facing landform, moderate climate, year around golf, warm season grasses with patches of cool season cultivars not much change in temperatures, no freezing and thawing. Close to major city, close to avg size village. Water readily available, with more then ample rainfall in winter months.  Hillside drains rather quickly in winter months.




Cost of land - ? not known  but probably expensive for purchase of additional land. Choice of land critical to success of development.






Cost to build -  Must pipe water to single row quick coupler system.  Beach sand used for bunkers and prepping the push up greens for planting.  Minor soil adjustments for sowing seed into native soils. Not much land clearing,  major rock not visible, wide open farm land.  trees only growing adjacent to barrancas.  Drainage not an issue, plenty of topography relief.  One season of grow-in needed.








Now does this landscape provide enough mix for Mackenzie and Hunter to work their magic, a resounding- YES

[Ira Fishman]

Jim,


Thank you for a marvelous lesson in how to look at and think about the development and design of a course.  Both my wife and I have Pasatiempo very high on our list for a return visit.  Should we be so fortunate, I will now appreciate it even more.


Ira

[Tom_Doak]

Jim:


I suppose you could do that whole exercise to justify a plan "scientifically," and maybe MacKenzie had Robert Hunter do just that.


Most of the time, though, MacKenzie would be on site a matter of a few days at most, and in that time he would do a routing to demonstrate that all of the features you describe would, in fact, produce a superior golf course.  He didn't do a bunch of site analysis maps, or at least I've never seen one; he started laying out golf holes, right away. That's a more sophisticated form of site analysis, on the fly.

[John Emerson]

The cost of maintenance of any feature is up to the super/ club/ owner. Bunkers should be the least expensive maintenance item, in my opinion, but at most clubs there is more energy and money spent on bunkers than on greens. (An in depth report on this was done by Bob Randquist, years ago) Tell me how that makes any sense.

Agree--the single most confounding thing in a maintenance budget IMO.


The members should rake them--as each of us learned as a kid, "leave the golf course better than you found it". In my experience,a few fines handed out frequently inspires the members to do better.


Plus,it's usually the good players who bitch the most about the bunkers--A) they are never going to be satisfied, B) they don't need the help. So why even bother to try and placate them?

People not raking bunkers accounts for pennies of the total to maintain bunkers.  If had a list of things that are costly for bunker maintenance, raking after shots would be dead last, or not even make the list.

[Joe Hancock]

The cost of maintenance of any feature is up to the super/ club/ owner. Bunkers should be the least expensive maintenance item, in my opinion, but at most clubs there is more energy and money spent on bunkers than on greens. (An in depth report on this was done by Bob Randquist, years ago) Tell me how that makes any sense.

Agree--the single most confounding thing in a maintenance budget IMO.


The members should rake them--as each of us learned as a kid, "leave the golf course better than you found it". In my experience,a few fines handed out frequently inspires the members to do better.


Plus,it's usually the good players who bitch the most about the bunkers--A) they are never going to be satisfied, B) they don't need the help. So why even bother to try and placate them?

People not raking bunkers accounts for pennies of the total to maintain bunkers.  If had a list of things that are costly for bunker maintenance, raking after shots would be dead last, or not even make the list.

I don’t disagree, the cost is more likely made up of raking fancy patterns....even the clubs’ logo in the bottoms...or the newest fad of making sure the faces are smooth so the balls roll to the bottom. All that stuff costs something, but an even bigger point to me is that it adds nothing of substance to the enjoyment of the game of golf.


The costs associated with bunker maintenance and construction has more to do with frequency of re-building, adding(and subsequent removal, which will be huge) of aggregate-based liners, near-constant replenishment of sand (or total removal/ replacement to “upgrade the sand”). When Bob Randquist did his study, I’m pretty sure the biggest line item of cost associated with bunkers was indeed labor to maintain, but it’s been a long time since I’ve read through it and I could be wrong.

[Ira Fishman]

Does bunker style really matter except for aesthetics?

Yes. Imagine a Raynor-style bunker, with flat sand bottoms and steep grass faces vs. High flashed sand, i.e. Winged Foot. The recovery shots vary widely. Now, if you’re just referencing bunker edge treatment while all other variables remain the same, then the difference is much less.

Are rumpled fairways really more expensive to maintain?

No. I must not understand your question, because if general terrain is the same and area is the same, there would be no difference in cost.
Why don’t more courses use smaller greens?


They do, and should for variety sake. The issue of wear likely has more to do with shade or other agronomoic issues. If you’re not familiar with the 15th at Kingsley Club, check it out. It’s a terrific use of a small green in an unlikely setting and situation.


Why don’t architects angle greens to the fairway more frequently?


I don’t know. They should. It’s an effective way to create variability in both line and distance from day to day. It also is an effective way to utilize deception and create uncertainty for the golfer.


How does one learn to look at a piece of raw land and have a clue if it would make for a good course?

See Mr. Urbina’s response.
Why do fewer people curse at false fronts than at greens that cant toward the back?

They don’t recognize that the front is false. They do understand that their ball didn’t “hold” on a the back-canting green, and that is “unfair”....(bathed in sarcasm)

I appreciate so many of you taking my questions seriously. I want to follow up on a couple of Joe’s responses.


First, re small greens, I certainly hope to play Kingsley. My experience with some of the other recently designed acclaimed courses (those at Bandon and Streamsong plus Kapalua Plantation and Primland) has been the opposite. Maybe the scale of the property leads to larger greens, but that does not seem an imperative to me.


Second, I agree completely regarding the pluses of angling the axis of the green to that of the fairway, yet it does seem an infrequent design choice.


Ira

[JC Urbina]

Ira,


Never did I think your questions were anything but sincere.   Following up with the last part of your question about Pacific Dunes.

"But if hypothetically it were not on the bluffs over the ocean, I would have a difficult time looking at the land itself to say ahah what a great site for a great course"


Your comment on the land where Pacific Dunes sits,  I see it much different.

I saw the land as a treasure trove of possibilities.  What that property provides is a stunning landscape on which to build a golf course. 

Where as Pasatiempo was goverened by steep canyons on both sides of the property and a barranca running though the upper part of the golf course, which Mackenzie and Hunter identified as an important part of the routing, Pacific Dunes had no borders other then the "Bluff" and David Kidds golf course to the south.

Mackenzie had to work with the Olmstead brothers using topo maps to layout his masterpiece.  Pacific Dunes had no constraints.

Pasatiempo had a landform that tilted from North to South. Pasatiempo had gorges and ravines to work with but no monuments of sand to work in and around.  Pac Dunes had a variety of landforms on which to work with.

Pasatiempo had a defined entrance, PD could have entered from anywhere east of the Bluff.

Pasatiempo had a vison imbossed on it by the Owner, Marion Hollins.

Pac Dunes had a owner that had no preconceived notions, in fact during the routing process he offered even more land on which to craft a golf course in the spirit of the links lands of Scotland and Ireland.

Pacific Dunes reminded me of the dunes land that I had a chance to see at a very impressionable age courtesy of the Dye famiy who sent me to Scotland when I was 28. Prestwick, Royal Troon, Western Gailes and Turnberry, danced in my head as I walked this wonderful piece of property on the Ocean.  The landforms of Pacific Dunes stirred my creative soul, it was full of dunes, at different elevations, vegetation that had a beauty all its own and in between the picturesque dunes were rolling fields of sand on which to lay out a golf course.  Natural green sites, wonderful outcroppings for tees to sit on and backrounds in the distant allowed for the most creative and strategic golf course I was ever involved with up to that point. 

Walking the site you could see natural blowouts in the sand that craved for a hazard to nestle into.  Small undulations that one could tie into to create putting surfaces as varied as any you will see ( Think #7 at Pac Dunes ) Everywhere you turned the beauty revealed itself, you just had to decide what you could use and what needed to be skirted and left alone.

I know you won't believe this but rarely did I think the land next to the Ocean had the best micro undulations, I could have stayed in the bowl of land that # 1,2,7,8,16 played in.   It was so diverse, plenty of options to use in the creation of the golf course. Yes, once you walk up to the 3rd tee and see what lies ahead its hard not to go out to the Big Blue Ocean, it is enticing.  But coming back from the Cliffs edge you once again enter into the cool landforms that # 7 and #8 give you.

Having an Owner not dictate the starting and stopping point was the key.  Land so big you could go in any direction. You could go for a walk, and not be constrained by cart paths and homes. 

You see Pasatiempo and Pacific Dunes are so contrarian in there presentation.  Mackenzie had two loops of nine,he mastered the land and maximized your golfing experience. Pac Dunes just goes for a walk, 

I love them both for different reasons, I learned to respect the landforms they both offered and to see the possibilities each gave to the golfing PUBLIC.  Pasatiempo's design was so far ahead of its time, ground breaking and one of the reason Bobby Jones hired Alister Mackenzie to design Augusta National.

Cypress Point , Pasatiempo and Augusta National all brilliant in there design presentation.

Each required your full attention to maximize the return on the investment. At Pacific Dunes decisions were made everyday to enhance the landscape around you.  You can't do that on a drawing or on a computer screen. You must spend the time on site and let the beauty of the land reveal itself.

[Kalen Braley]

JC,

What a terrific post, thanks for that! That brings me back to my first time there when i first saw the 18th green looking back up the hole and amazed.  I then wandered over to look at #7 and was truly mesmerized.

P.S.  You really need to post more!

[Ira Fishman]

I realized as a kid that I was never going to make my living playing golf. Now thanks to Jim’s and many other posts, as an old man, I realize it was a good thing that I did not try to make my living as a golf course architect.


And what great passion for the profession and course that Jim’s post evidences and explains. If you are having fun, it ain’t work.


Ira

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()