[Thomas Dai]

I don't disagree with you Tom and I also take agree with the various environmental, especially water, points mentioned above.
My appreciation and respect very much lies with those in the business who are sufficiently talented and skilled to be able to create and maintain such courses in such unfriendly terrain and environments, even more so if they've spent less £-$ than others might have done.
An aspect of deserts that can be overlooked by some is temperature variation - deserts are usually thought of as being hot places, but jeez, they can get cold too.
I also admire what I might call more basic desert golf, pretty imaginative sometimes, and those who created and maintain and play such courses - the likes of this Navajo course - [size=78%]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bmmAxonT-o[/size] or somewhere like Cooper Pedy in Aussie -[/size][size=78%]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUL5uZTFGzU[/size]
I'm sure you've come across a few in your time. Looks great fun actually ... heat and snakes apart!
atb

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
I think you would agree, there are soo many examples of courses that are built in environments that are not natural for golf.  I was just in Hawaii and played several built in the middle of lava fields    I am sure you have seen courses like Nanea, that land was not meant for great golf.  At least a desert has sand 


I just don't think some people appreciate the desert landscape and or the skill required to build a course there.
Mark

[Kalen Braley]

Jeff,

I know you was just messing with the "grenade", but I looked it up anyways cause I was curious...

Average annual rain fall per year:

Phoenix, AZ - 8 in per year
Oakland, CA - 24 in per year
Seattle, WA - 38 in per year
Orlando, FL, - 52 in per year
Mangawhai, a few miles from Tara Iti - 53 in per year.

[Jeff Schley]

Jeff,

I know you was just messing with the "grenade", but I looked it up anyways cause I was curious...

Average annual rain fall per year:

Phoenix, AZ - 8 in per year
Oakland, CA - 24 in per year
Seattle, WA - 38 in per year
Orlando, FL, - 52 in per year
Mangawhai, a few miles from Tara Iti - 53 in per year.

So your telling me there's a chance?

[Kalen Braley]

Jeff,

I know you was just messing with the "grenade", but I looked it up anyways cause I was curious...

Average annual rain fall per year:

Phoenix, AZ - 8 in per year
Oakland, CA - 24 in per year
Seattle, WA - 38 in per year
Orlando, FL, - 52 in per year
Mangawhai, a few miles from Tara Iti - 53 in per year.

So your telling me there's a chance?

"Yeeeaaa"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMRrNY0pxfM


P.S.  One of the most under rated movies of all time, especially if you looking at critics lists!! 

[Jeff Schley]

Good info Kalen as I looked up what is the criteria to be considered "desert biome" and it is 10 or less inches of rainfall a year.
Palm Springs gets about 5 inches a year
Las Vegas gets about 5 inches a year
Parts of Utah (Great Salt Lake Desert) are about 8 inches a year
El Paso gets 10 inches a year
Dubai is about 4 inches a year
Cabo San Lucas is just under 9 inches a year
Doesn't qualify
Albuquerque gets 11 inches a year

[astavrides]

Doesn't qualify
Albuquerque gets 11 inches a year

Average the last 30 years in ABQ is 9.45 in. The only year since 2007 that ABQ has received more than 9.45 inches was 2015.
https://www.weather.gov/abq/climonhigh2018annual-tempprecipabq

[Jeff Schley]

Doesn't qualify
Albuquerque gets 11 inches a year

Average the last 30 years in ABQ is 9.45 in. The only year since 2007 that ABQ has received more than 9.45 inches was 2015.
https://www.weather.gov/abq/climonhigh2018annual-tempprecipabq

Hmmm.... I got mine from : https://www.bestplaces.net/climate/city/new_mexico/albuquerque
So clearly there is some fake news being reported to sell Albuquerque.

[astavrides]

Doesn't qualify
Albuquerque gets 11 inches a year

Average the last 30 years in ABQ is 9.45 in. The only year since 2007 that ABQ has received more than 9.45 inches was 2015.
https://www.weather.gov/abq/climonhigh2018annual-tempprecipabq

Hmmm.... I got mine from : https://www.bestplaces.net/climate/city/new_mexico/albuquerque
So clearly there is some fake news being reported to sell Albuquerque.

I wouldn't call it fake news. I suspect that site used an average that dated from when records had started being kept, rather than a 30 year average. Considering the galloping pace of climate change, any average that includes anything older than that is likely to misrepresent the current climate.

[Forrest Richardson]

Sean — Nearly all "desert" courses in Arizona use reclaimed water, which otherwise would be displaced on the open terrain and allowed to move downstream to the Colorado River without decent filtration. Using a field of 70-90 acres of turf as a filtration allows the recycled water to move back into the ground from where it originally came. This is good science — and very good environmental practice. Even when desert courses may use potable water, it is typically blended with some form of gray water.

Golf courses "borrow" water. They really do not "use" that much when you delve into where the water goes.

There are a few factors that drive desert courses not getting better "love" from raters and the hoity-toity purists:

1 - A lot of purists take their roots from the East Coast of the US or across the pond...no deserts, so fair to imagine a desert setting as being unfamiliar

2 - Most all desert courses are modern...and, like the movement INLAND back in the late 1700s and early 1800s, it took a long while to appreciate INLAND settings as opposed to the coastal/links locations (maybe we will never appreciate desert settings)

3 - As follow up to #2, "old be better" when it comes to golf love, and even in the modern "loved" courses we see them taking on the look (95% of the time) to "old" versions of the game...not all that possible with desert courses because there are no "old" versions to appreciate (Desert Forest being one exception...but, still only c. 1960s)

4 - Housing, as Tom D points out, is prevalent on desert layouts...and there are few trees to conceal them, unlike — say — Muirfield Village or Cypress, where housing sits back in the woods even though it is within a few hundred feet of some fairways

5 - My first project was basically a par-3 course masquerading as a regulation...I had way less turf than needed, because my instinct was to preserve the rock formations and land forms...that did not work all that well, but over the years we have made it better...I think Tom D's idea for more par-3 desert courses is spot on!

[Jason Topp]

I see no reason why desert courses cannot be great. 
I love playing in the desert - partially because of the weather and partially because the landscape is so beautiful.  Beyond that, I think the topography is often quite good for golf and courses can play quite firm and fast at certain times of the year. 

I also think desert courses have greatly improved over the last 25 years in many respects:  They are more playable than they once were.  At one time desert courses were either completely grassed over or consisted of target golf.  Architects have learned how to create playable courses within the confines of turf restrictions.  Troon North is somewhat at the fulcrum of that history.  I remember thinking it was more playable than most desert courses when it opened.  Playing it this year it seemed very intimidating and tight.

I do think that many of the courses are driven by factors inconsistent with our view of a great golf course.  Housing has been a big component of the business plan for most of them - leaving golf to the leftover land and the prime real estate for houses.  There seems to be demand for inconguous water hazards - most desert courses have ponds. 

I also think it is much more difficult to meet the ideal of providing an interesting yet playable challenge for all levels of player in a desert setting.  The desert acts essentially as out of bounds stakes lining each fairway but is unlikely to be a factor for the good player if the course is wide enough.  For mid handicaps and up a disaster lurks with every full swing. 

I would love to see more efforts at minimalist inspired courses in the desert.  We Ko Pa Saguaro, Apache Stronghold and Stoneagle demonstrate that an interesting courses can be built (although I suspect turf restrictions may not have applied to each course).  Unfortunately, many of the courses that provide the most interesting test of the game are manufactured and therefore not visually pleasing (PGA West Stadium). 

[Thomas Dai]

How are desert courses, and a bunch have been built in the last few decades, that are not in the USA respected?
How do US and non-US desert courses compare from such aspects as design, construction, grass types, vegetation, water usage, storms, playability, maintenance, nearby housing etc?

Atb

[jeffwarne]

Jeff,  In thinking about this thread, I was struck by your introduction.  People flock to the desert (or Florida for that matter) in the winter for the weather, not for the golf.  While golf may be a key activity for many of the snowbirds, the quality of golf is not central. Thus to suggest that there may be a disconnect between the popularity of the venue and the lack of quality in the golf architecture assumes a connection that does not exist.  Tom points out a number of the reasons why the architecture fails to match the weather.  I suggest that the dearth of architectural excellence in Florida is attributable to similar factors and is a further indication of the validity of the underlying premise.

SL Solow,
I would argue it was the ERA that most courses were built in Florida that leads to their mediocrity.
Seminole, Biltmore and multiple other classic courses in Florida are quite good, but the big money later went into all the shite development courses where the priority was housing-That said, Mountain Lake was one of the first housing developments and is excellent as the priority was the golf-eventually the golf was secondary.
Streamsong shows what is possible when housing is not the modern priority.

[Dan Smoot]

I see no reason why desert courses cannot be great. 
I love playing in the desert - partially because of the weather and partially because the landscape is so beautiful.  Beyond that, I think the topography is often quite good for golf and courses can play quite firm and fast at certain times of the year. 

I also think desert courses have greatly improved over the last 25 years in many respects:  They are more playable than they once were.  At one time desert courses were either completely grassed over or consisted of target golf.  Architects have learned how to create playable courses within the confines of turf restrictions.  Troon North is somewhat at the fulcrum of that history.  I remember thinking it was more playable than most desert courses when it opened.  Playing it this year it seemed very intimidating and tight.

I do think that many of the courses are driven by factors inconsistent with our view of a great golf course.  Housing has been a big component of the business plan for most of them - leaving golf to the leftover land and the prime real estate for houses.  There seems to be demand for inconguous water hazards - most desert courses have ponds. 

I also think it is much more difficult to meet the ideal of providing an interesting yet playable challenge for all levels of player in a desert setting.  The desert acts essentially as out of bounds stakes lining each fairway but is unlikely to be a factor for the good player if the course is wide enough.  For mid handicaps and up a disaster lurks with every full swing. 

I would love to see more efforts at minimalist inspired courses in the desert.  We Ko Pa Saguaro, Apache Stronghold and Stoneagle demonstrate that an interesting courses can be built (although I suspect turf restrictions may not have applied to each course).  Unfortunately, many of the courses that provide the most interesting test of the game are manufactured and therefore not visually pleasing (PGA West Stadium). 

Love desert golf, not my most favorite but there is beauty there.  Love We Ko Pa Saguaro.  Plenty of challenge, beauty and probably one of the most well conditioned golf courses I have played.  I don't see why there can't be something architecturally respected there.  There are a number of places with good rolling terrain.  Desert landscape can provide the same interesting golf courses that dunescape or mountains can minus the water and extreme terrain.  For years of traveling through NE Colorado who could envision what is sitting there now.  The same could be said of Nebraska.  They were all places to get through not stop.  Great vision for those owners who put there resources out there.

[Tom_Doak]

We Ko Pa Saguaro, Apache Stronghold and Stoneagle demonstrate that an interesting courses can be built (although I suspect turf restrictions may not have applied to each course). 

Turf acreage restrictions are law in Arizona, but that doesn't apply at Stone Eagle in Palm Desert, and it also doesn't apply on tribal land.  In spite of that, architects generally stick to the guidelines, lest they be accused of ruining the environment somewhere.  I don't know the total acreage of turf at Stone Eagle, but it isn't over 90 acres which is the upper limit.  [Most courses in Arizona have only 65 or 70 acres of turf, because water is expensive there, as it should be.]


When we were building Apache Stronghold, they had just had a dispute over water rights, after a company was found doing directional drilling under their land for a big well.  So they told us, specifically, "use as much water as you want".  I didn't realize how serious the dispute was until I read in the paper that they'd threatened to cut off Tucson!

[Steve_ Shaffer]

To answer Tom Doak's question above about Desert Forest: Yes, it was the first " desert course" in AZ.  The other "older courses"  I mentioned are "parkland courses"- very traditional. I like Phoenix CC as a very good members course after spectating at the Schwab Cup a few times.

I'm surprised that Talking Stick North (O’odham) hasn't been mentioned as a "respected architecturally" course.


http://golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/usa/talkingstick/

[Peter Pallotta]

I was enjoying again Sean's 'Kent Kaleidoscope' thread, and I thought:

if golf had started life in the deserts of the American southwest (and with the courses mentioned here) instead of the linkslands of Scotland, with only in the last 30-50 years courses like Deal, Princes, Sandwich and Pacific Dunes coming into existence, would the purists and the precious complain that it wasn't where golf courses were supposed to be, and that it wasn't what golf courses should look like and play like?

[Ken Moum]

I was enjoying again Sean's 'Kent Kaleidoscope' thread, and I thought:

if golf had started life in the deserts of the American southwest (and with the courses mentioned here) instead of the linkslands of Scotland, with only in the last 30-50 years courses like Deal, Princes, Sandwich and Pacific Dunes coming into existence, would the purists and the precious complain that it wasn't where golf courses were supposed to be, and that it wasn't what golf courses should look like and play like?

While i guess that you could make an interesting discussion about that, you'd have to ignore that the fact that the game we play could never have appeared anywhere but linksland.


They were playing the game, as it exists today ~400 years before there were mowers. And longer than that before irrigation.


Nevertheless, let's assume someone decided to play a stick-and-ball game over rocky terrain covered with cactus and scrub. Then sure, people would say courses built on grass, with trees, were "wrong."

[Thomas Dai]

I was enjoying again Sean's 'Kent Kaleidoscope' thread, and I thought:
if golf had started life in the deserts of the American southwest (and with the courses mentioned here) instead of the linkslands of Scotland, with only in the last 30-50 years courses like Deal, Princes, Sandwich and Pacific Dunes coming into existence, would the purists and the precious complain that it wasn't where golf courses were supposed to be, and that it wasn't what golf courses should look like and play like?

While i guess that you could make an interesting discussion about that, you'd have to ignore that the fact that the game we play could never have appeared anywhere but linksland.
They were playing the game, as it exists today ~400 years before there were mowers. And longer than that before irrigation.
Nevertheless, let's assume someone decided to play a stick-and-ball game over rocky terrain covered with cactus and scrub. Then sure, people would say courses built on grass, with trees, were "wrong."

Fair point - [size=78%]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bmmAxonT-o[/size]


In many ways, excluding snakes, scorpion's and other nasty critters, is there that much difference between early times in links golf and basic desert golf? Stick, ball (stone) and hole.
atb

[Jeff Schley]

As we were talking about desert courses in another thread, I searched for this as there are so good views contained. I really do enjoy desert golf in the "winter" particularly, however we shall see how sustainable that is moving forward due to water restrictions and politics around them.

[Mark_Fine]

My feelings haven’t changed from what I posted four years ago about desert courses so I won’t repeat. 


I did just play Desert Forest a few weeks ago.  First time since the renovation.  I have to say, while I personally would not have changed and rebuilt all the Red Lawrence greens and bunkers (as was done), I did enjoy the golf course.  Architecturally speaking, it is well worth seeing if in the area.  It has no formal fairway bunkers (there is one short of a green but that is it).  The greens were all raised and their surrounds changed.  It kindles some feelings from Pine Valley on several of the holes which is not surprising given the Flynn influence but it is now a new golf course within the original routing.  Like Pine Valley it is fairly forgiving off the tee except for a wild shot but very demanding into the green complexes.  Many appear smaller than they really are.

[Kalen Braley]

What about the "high desert" courses like Sand Hills?

FYI

Not sure anyone considers Nebraska desert, but good thought

High desert is Phoenix, Tucson, Bend, Las Vegas

I was curious William because it hadn't occurred to me either.  It looks like the areas around Mullen and Valentine get roughly 20-25 inches per year.

However, if you look west of there, many parts of Wyoming would be considered such.  Casper only gets 13 inches per year and Rock Springs 9.

[Tim_Weiman]

Jeff,  In thinking about this thread, I was struck by your introduction.  People flock to the desert (or Florida for that matter) in the winter for the weather, not for the golf.  While golf may be a key activity for many of the snowbirds, the quality of golf is not central. Thus to suggest that there may be a disconnect between the popularity of the venue and the lack of quality in the golf architecture assumes a connection that does not exist.  Tom points out a number of the reasons why the architecture fails to match the weather.  I suggest that the dearth of architectural excellence in Florida is attributable to similar factors and is a further indication of the validity of the underlying premise.

SL Solow,
I would argue it was the ERA that most courses were built in Florida that leads to their mediocrity.
Seminole, Biltmore and multiple other classic courses in Florida are quite good, but the big money later went into all the shite development courses where the priority was housing-That said, Mountain Lake was one of the first housing developments and is excellent as the priority was the golf-eventually the golf was secondary.
Streamsong shows what is possible when housing is not the modern priority.

Jeff,


Do you think that golf becoming secondary actually hurt the golf course at Mountain Lake?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()