[Don Mahaffey]

I like how this thread is returning to "current trends" and going away from predicting the future which was never the intent.
I think "bigger is better" is most definitely a trend driving new design. I also think Mike Kaiser helps set trends because he is so influential, and when he chose to go away from an ocean front site and added to all this talk about "fun" and then hired Kidd based on Gamble Sands, it got noticed.

I know on our current project, Mike Nuzzo and I are trying hard not to be influenced, and the fact we have a site so different than our previous project, we are trying hard to stay true to the ground we have to work with. And that means smaller scale.
I'm trying to think of a project I've worked on where the course didn't grow in size during construction. I know at Winter Park it didn't because it physically couldn't, and its pretty damn good. I know at Dismal, Tom made a strong effort not to just go larger. But the others, everyone wants more ground to work with and more grass.

I'm not sure the ball can be blamed for the current size of our golf courses. I think its easier to design bigger. Easier to look impressive, to frame, to create views and back drops, to chase that "beauty" thing Tommy alluded to. Bigger is definitely easier, but is it truly more fun to play? In every case? Are we to quick to score a bigger course higher? Can hazards be placed where the options are more about the club used off the tee vs the direction we pick? Can greens be built smaller but set within a landscape where there are still options vs just using wide array of different approach angles? Is going bigger the default because its safer in this era of very few new courses?

[Tom_Doak]

 It does, however, seem like if naturalsim is pushed to the extreme (and that is easy to do on large sites), archies are tempted to spread out design to incorporate the cool natural features as much as reasonably possible...and the notion of reasonable no longer seems to have much of a limit.  Of course, the larger the site tends to mean larger footprint courses which ultimately means the pressure on the design as walkable is increased.  What I am finding is the idea of a good walk is slowly (and regretably) becoming a non-issue.  There are the young guns who don't mind the extra effort now, but they will one day  and for the rest of us there are carts or skip the course.  I do wonder if folks will look back in 25 years and think the big foot print trend was a bit of a lost opportunity.  Might it have been wiser to tone down the ambition and scale back the designs for the sake of walking and sustainability?

Sean:


Some of the "big" courses are very walkable, and some not at all.  You can make something very walkable and still have a very big course if you stick the greens and tees right together but go all over the place from one fairway to the next.


When we have a big site, part of the issue is, how many really cool features on it can I incorporate into the course?  If it's relatively flat and there aren't a lot of features, I might keep the routing quite compact, and try to utilize the features it does have multiple times in the same routing, the way Pacific Dunes keeps coming back to the coast at different junctures.  But if the property has a lot of variety to it, I might do a routing where the 18th green is two miles from the first tee, just so you can experience the different aspects of the property.


The funny part about your last sentence above is that it's not unusual for the "sustainability" of a project to be judged by the client's willingness to mark off a large portion of property as a conservation area, or even give it away to the town for their own use.  That's one of the reasons clients look for large sites now, they've gotta use some of it for bribes ... or for tax write-offs !

[Peter Pallotta]

Don - here's hoping you can balance the heart of an amateur, the craft of a professional, the shrewdness of a veteran, the pure intention of an artist, the patience of a saint, and the pig-headed stubbornness of a Texan!

In the situation you describe and in today's context, I think the only way to succeed is to make it completely about *the work* (not that you need me to tell you that). As others have noted, once upon a time a great and timeless golf course - i.e. great *architecture* - was often made manifest on a smaller site. There's no reason that can't happen again -- if, that is, great architecture and a timeless course (i.e. "the work") is what you're focused on most of all.

It's a worthy goal.   
Best 
Peter

[Forrest Richardson]

One trend is a mindset to allow more success on the golf course. That is, more scoring success and more fun by players of varying skill levels.

On Tom D's note about width, a small site — if it is designed with all one-shot holes — does not necessarily need width to make it interesting, or fun. In spirit — yes — width is necessary to attain playing options. But we do need to remember that this typically applies only to par-4s and 5s.

[Lou_Duran]

I'm trying to think of a project I've worked on where the course didn't grow in size during construction. I know at Winter Park it didn't because it physically couldn't, and its pretty damn good. I know at Dismal, Tom made a strong effort not to just go larger. But the others, everyone wants more ground to work with and more grass.
I'm not sure the ball can be blamed for the current size of our golf courses. I think its easier to design bigger. Easier to look impressive, to frame, to create views and back drops, to chase that "beauty" thing Tommy alluded to. Bigger is definitely easier,  but is it truly more fun to play? In every case? Are we to quick to score a bigger course higher? Can hazards be placed where the options are more about the club used off the tee vs the direction we pick? Can greens be built smaller but set within a landscape where there are still options vs just using wide array of different approach angles? Is going bigger the default because its safer in this era of very few new courses?

Holding all other things equal (c.p.) bigger- having more room- typically offers more options and variety, and, therefore, is more fun than being confined.  Not always, but most often. 

To the extent that the major design features on large sites are properly scaled, the natural bias in favor of aesthetics would tend to drive evaluations accordingly.

A course that scores highly on the type and variety of shots it rewards offers holes that allow different angles and some that suggest shot placement to specific areas with shorter clubs; some, like Rawls #13, do both.

Smaller greens tend to limit options, and, as you well know, can pose serious maintenance problems.  That's not to say that all greens should be large enough to site an average home.  I like the concept of proportionality, and matching the green complex to the scale of the surrounds/backgrounds.

Going bigger is not a default, but a continuation of many things in human existence, and certainly in golf since its inception.  I was looking at the history of North Berwick- West and the one constant is expansion.  I am sure that we will buck the law of diminishing returns some day, but I doubt that the evolution of the game in this direction will be arrested any time soon.
     

[Don Mahaffey]

Lou,
I don't think building one course where when given an option the architect chooses the smaller, more compact option more often than not  to be bucking a trend or changing evolution. Hey, we went big at Wolf Point, but we had a big canvas. I guess we'd just like to show you can build some good golf on a smaller canvas as well. They used to do it, and I'm pretty sure they were playing for fun back then too even if they phrased it differently. I get the conventional wisdom, and I like width and options as much as anyone, when the width actually gives me options. I don't consider just playing to a different heading an option.

[Forrest Richardson]

Some interesting facts about The Short Course at Mountain Shadows — the anthesis of a wide course, to be sure!

• 33 acres of total land area
• 13.5 acres of managed turf
• Average corridor width is about 250 feet (lot line to lot line)
• Only 6 holes are parallel; all others are single holes flanked by homes
• Average green size is ≥6,500 s.f.
• All holes are par-3

[Sean_A]

 It does, however, seem like if naturalsim is pushed to the extreme (and that is easy to do on large sites), archies are tempted to spread out design to incorporate the cool natural features as much as reasonably possible...and the notion of reasonable no longer seems to have much of a limit.  Of course, the larger the site tends to mean larger footprint courses which ultimately means the pressure on the design as walkable is increased.  What I am finding is the idea of a good walk is slowly (and regretably) becoming a non-issue.  There are the young guns who don't mind the extra effort now, but they will one day  and for the rest of us there are carts or skip the course.  I do wonder if folks will look back in 25 years and think the big foot print trend was a bit of a lost opportunity.  Might it have been wiser to tone down the ambition and scale back the designs for the sake of walking and sustainability?

Sean:


Some of the "big" courses are very walkable, and some not at all.  You can make something very walkable and still have a very big course if you stick the greens and tees right together but go all over the place from one fairway to the next.


When we have a big site, part of the issue is, how many really cool features on it can I incorporate into the course?  If it's relatively flat and there aren't a lot of features, I might keep the routing quite compact, and try to utilize the features it does have multiple times in the same routing, the way Pacific Dunes keeps coming back to the coast at different junctures.  But if the property has a lot of variety to it, I might do a routing where the 18th green is two miles from the first tee, just so you can experience the different aspects of the property.


The funny part about your last sentence above is that it's not unusual for the "sustainability" of a project to be judged by the client's willingness to mark off a large portion of property as a conservation area, or even give it away to the town for their own use.  That's one of the reasons clients look for large sites now, they've gotta use some of it for bribes ... or for tax write-offs !

Tom...yes, you are saying essentially the same thing...the bigger sites come with higher risk of having less walkable courses. 

I spose talking about sustainability for many of these far flung projects is a joke when we consider what sort of carbon footprint is required just to get golfers on site.  The bribe stuff you speak of is very common in UK housing.  We have recently had two developers in our village offer larger plots than the development for community recreational use.  Neither ploy worked.....there is nothing like land in the centre of a village....

Ciao

[Mike Hendren]

Goodness knows I benefit from today's emphasis on width.  But, I have seen at least one study concluding that accuracy has increased by 35% since the Golden Age through improvements in equipment.  If so, why the INCREASE in width?  Is "because we can" at least one factor?


Just wondering.

[Tom_Doak]

Goodness knows I benefit from today's emphasis on width.  But, I have seen at least one study concluding that accuracy has increased by 35% since the Golden Age through improvements in equipment.  If so, why the INCREASE in width?  Is "because we can" at least one factor?

I want to see the study.  I have no doubt that a mis-hit a certain distance away from the sweet spot is 35% more accurate than it used to be.  But I don't buy that it equates to golfers being 35% more accurate in the aggregate.  There are more bad golfers now, and they swing harder than ever.


"Because we can" is a big factor, combined with the fact that most people think the scale of a big course looks more natural ... which it does.  A 30-yard target 250+ yards away looks positively anorexic to the player's eye.


But when you say that width has INCREASED, don't forget, most of the Golden Age courses had 50-60 yard fairways before single row irrigation systems were installed.  That's another reason width has increased ... restoration to original dimensions!

[Peter Pallotta]

Bogey -
IMO, there is no 'golf-only' reason and no 'game-specific' rationale and not even some 'architecture-first' requirements for the kind of scale and width that's become so prevalent today, especially with modern equipment that has shots flying higher and straighter than ever before. There *can't* be such reasons/rationales, can there?
I mean, to state the obvious: it can't be about the challenge and strategy and fun and beauty and sustainability and playability of the game or the quality of the architecture when so many highly regarded classic courses and minor gems on both sides of the Atlantic have continued (over many decades now) to provide countless golfers with precisely those very same qualities and experiences quite independently of/without utilizing such scale and width.
In short: if such scale and width was actually a *necessity* the Top 200 list would look very different indeed (and with many favourites not on the list at all -- because they'd never have been built in the first place!)
You've played the game, and played it well, for a long time and in many different places and enjoyed it on a *wide variety* of courses both classic and modern, with everything from persimmon and blades to titanium and shovels, and so you're in a better position than I am to comment: but isn't it likely that "because we can" and maybe also a little of "because most others can't" is indeed a key factor?
Personally, it's not the (architectural) trend I mind so much as what (sociologically) lies behind the trend. Something just feels 'amiss' to me - I can't put my finger on it, other than to say that bigger and more bombastic at *this* particular time and place  seems a strange 'reaction' of some sort.
And mine, I suppose, is some strange counter-reaction! 

[Forrest Richardson]

Tom D, you state: "But I don't buy that it equates to golfers being 35% more accurate in the aggregate.  There are more bad golfers now, and they swing harder than ever.

You read a lot! And all that reading is about the BEST PLAYERS of yesterday...not the awful players. The players of today are no different than in 1880, 1920 or 1950 — they have the exact same passion, and they play basically the same game. Look at any golf magazine of today — you will see 90% or more of the space dedicated to the very best in the game, not the average.

[Sean_A]

But when you say that width has INCREASED, don't forget, most of the Golden Age courses had 50-60 yard fairways before single row irrigation systems were installed.  That's another reason width has increased ... restoration to original dimensions!

Yes!  This is a fact that is often forgotten.  The game has fundamentally changed from one which relied far more heavily on distance/length to artificial trouble/narrow fairways.  Imagine how much longer 6200 yards was in 1918 compared to today. It could be argued that we need at least as much width on modern courses because the amount of trouble lining fairways has increased a ton.  When you think about it, it is remarkable courses are being built today which so closely resemble those of 100 years ago.  It is no coincidence that folks like these wide/natural designs because they have have a hugely successful blueprint.  What is different today is the total package.  Courses play the same width as previously, but take far more acreage to achieve this.  I know we like to blame health & safety, but I think the far bigger issue is that back in the day bigger wasn't seen as better as it is now.  Folks didn't mind saying hello to Tom, Dick & Harry while playing their weekly round.  These days, seclusion, be it in the guise of trees, dunes or massive property, reigns supreme.  I always thought this approach flew in the face of community/club spirit, but so many of these new breed courses aren't aiming to achieve this...its more about money over the counter. 

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Once-upon-a-time width was surely determined by where the animals ate the grass.
atb

[Sean_A]

Once-upon-a-time width was surely determined by where the animals ate the grass.
atb

Probably, but not at the world's best courses by 1920ish.  Width was a design construct by this time. 


Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

The players of today are no different than in 1880

Really?  There were guys in 1880 blocking their tee shots two fairways over?

[Bradley Anderson]

I am curious to know what influence the feasibility study is having on trends in new golf course construction.


My impression is they had a big influence up till 10 years ago, but not so much so today. The feasibility studies were all "yes, yes yes........just build it and they will come."


I would assume that the only people building new courses today are doing their own feasibility analysis and it's based on their own proven track record. If that assumption is correct then the trend is for building what the owner has had previous success with. That would mean that new golf course construction is being driven by what golfers want and not by what the National Golf Foundation says people want.

[Tom_Doak]

I am curious to know what influence the feasibility study is having on trends in new golf course construction.


My impression is they had a big influence up till 10 years ago, but not so much so today. The feasibility studies were all "yes, yes yes........just build it and they will come."


I would assume that the only people building new courses today are doing their own feasibility analysis and it's based on their own proven track record. If that assumption is correct then the trend is for building what the owner has had previous success with. That would mean that new golf course construction is being driven by what golfers want and not by what the National Golf Foundation says people want.

Feasibility studies are pretty much b.s.  And so is the NGF.


One of my associates was recently asked to do a master plan for our local country club, which is not much of a course as it stands.  They are down to 180 members and are considering [at the suggestion of consultants] adding a pool, which would impact on a number of holes.  Don looked at the whole site and came up with some pretty transformative ideas that the membership was starting to get behind ... and then some NGF guy came in and got paid more than the master plan to spike it, telling the club they should only spend a minimal amount on changing the course, according to their pro formas.


The sad part is that several members were getting ready to donate the construction costs to the club, but now the membership at large has been scared off because of the NGF's boilerplate conclusion.  The NGF does not understand the value difference between a good course and a boring one.  So if they're going to be the arbiter of what golfers want, golf is in deep trouble.

[Forrest Richardson]

Tom D — Yes, in 1880 there were players blocking their tee shots two fairways over. I was not there, but I read it somewhere. I am not sure they were called "fairways" at that time, but I went back on GoogleEarth and looked at snapshots of 1875-1885 and yes, I saw bands of players and caddies well off the beaten path.

[Mike_Young]

I think one of the current trends is that much of the smoke and mirrors is going away.  I'm not talking about the few major projects that garner national attention and have the ad budgets to promote on a national level but just for golf across America.  TD mentions the NGF is BS..no doubt as well as the WGF.  For golf to thrive the primary investor in the sport has to be sucessful and for the last 25 years all had been geared toward the secondary investor being successful at the expense of the primary.  The course owners are the primary and the various vendors such as Titleist, ClubCar, Toro, fertilizer companies and RE devlopers are the secondary.  Yes, Real estate developers because they never really cared about golf in most cases but instead needed the increased Re value in home sites.  And so how will this happen?  It's happening now as we see more and more course being designed and built on the ground.   Just think about the average home in America.  There is no architect out there but just a builder who bought some plans and is building homes.  Sure there are a few custom homes where an architect was hired but in many cases just a plan from a specific dude was purchased and custom built for the home owner.  It's the only way to get the sport where it has any chance of being affordable for the average guy.  Also, don't ever forget how much the modern clubhouse has caused courses to fail.  I see that changing also. 

The other factor that will determine future trends is the ability to learn the trade.  Some of us were born at a time when we hit the market and new courses were being built at 350 per year.  That was all lucky timing and not necessarily more talent than a younger guy who hasn't gotten the chance to build new.  But now, new is  not happening and people are slobbering all over some guys who can build a fuzzy bunker etc when the reality is he has never had a chance to practice the craft as one would when things are rolling. So, the ability to route s not being practiced much today and probably not much in the near future.  That's just fact and not slamming of anyone.  But I think it supports my theory that in the dirt experience coupled with "necessary" plans is the trend. 

[Bradley Anderson]

I am curious to know what influence the feasibility study is having on trends in new golf course construction.


My impression is they had a big influence up till 10 years ago, but not so much so today. The feasibility studies were all "yes, yes yes........just build it and they will come."


I would assume that the only people building new courses today are doing their own feasibility analysis and it's based on their own proven track record. If that assumption is correct then the trend is for building what the owner has had previous success with. That would mean that new golf course construction is being driven by what golfers want and not by what the National Golf Foundation says people want.

Feasibility studies are pretty much b.s.  And so is the NGF.


One of my associates was recently asked to do a master plan for our local country club, which is not much of a course as it stands.  They are down to 180 members and are considering [at the suggestion of consultants] adding a pool, which would impact on a number of holes.  Don looked at the whole site and came up with some pretty transformative ideas that the membership was starting to get behind ... and then some NGF guy came in and got paid more than the master plan to spike it, telling the club they should only spend a minimal amount on changing the course, according to their pro formas.


The sad part is that several members were getting ready to donate the construction costs to the club, but now the membership at large has been scared off because of the NGF's boilerplate conclusion.  The NGF does not understand the value difference between a good course and a boring one.  So if they're going to be the arbiter of what golfers want, golf is in deep trouble.

I agree NGF is b.s.. For those of us who work in the daily fee side of the game, the feasibility study concept of marketing has harmed what was once a great gig. I am sitting here painting tee markers alone in January. I used to have people do that for me. This is what happens when you rubber stamp 10 new daily fee courses to your market. And now they are doing feasibility studies recommending the termination of veteran staffers.


I just hope that the trend is moving back to golf courses that are built and operated by people who are in it for the game and the love of the game. The NGF made it feasible to siphon wealth from golf without putting anything back in to it.

[Forrest Richardson]

Over the years several of our clients have used NGF Consulting to provide baseline research and market data. Most all of it was for figuring out whether improvements could be justified, and how — to what degree, etc. I do not believe "NGF is b.s." Maybe the comments are directed at the organization as a whole — perhaps not the consulting arm ?? No one has a better dBase of market facts in the U.S. and Canada than NGF. Wherever you see someone else cite market facts — they almost always come from the NGF.

I have also provided consulting to NGF Consulting, as have several superintendents, agronomists and others with specific expertise in areas of golf courses. NGF Consulting is made up of "golf economists" and they look to other professionals for specific opinions and recommendations.

[Forrest Richardson]

Tom D — It would be interesting to know more about your experience with the NGF. Who is "some guy" and what makes you know whether the people at NGF Consulting know a good course from a bad one? I do admire you for not appreciating any recommendation that goes against what you feel strongly needed to be done — not looking for "no" as an answer can be a good quality!

[Mike_Young]

Forrest,
I think the Pellucid database is much more on target than NGF.  NGF is just part of the "scratch my back" gang...JMO.  Why would anyone listen after they came out with the "course a day" crap.  That mainly suited the vendors who were supporting them. 

[Tom_Doak]

Tom D — It would be interesting to know more about your experience with the NGF. Who is "some guy" and what makes you know whether the people at NGF Consulting know a good course from a bad one? I do admire you for not appreciating any recommendation that goes against what you feel strongly needed to be done — not looking for "no" as an answer can be a good quality!

Forrest:  I had no experience with the NGF as I was not directly involved in the proposed project. 


They might not have made the same recommendation had they known it was my company - or they might have, I have no idea.  I was just bothered that after my associate had done a lot of work, the NGF guy basically vetoed it without even looking.  I understand that there are lots of clubs that are struggling and the last thing they need to do is throw good money after bad on a renovation; and we certainly are not making such recommendations in order to drum up work for ourselves. 


The project would have been meaningful to my associate, and the club would have gotten really good value for money out of it.  But here again, as with the "course a day", NGF appears to be making blanket recommendations, without paying attention to the particulars.  They sure didn't call me to ask anything about it.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()