[ChipRoyce]

Sorry that I left this out, also included redo of all practice area and configuration of a 9 hole short course within.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Chip,


Since I couldn't access the link to the article (showed up blank unless I subscribed) I appreciate the info.  I have sat in the grill room and heard wild exaggeration going on all around like the kids party game where you repeat the same thing all around the table.  One new course, which had been bid at $4.8M, was reported in the local papers (by fierce opponents) at gradually increasing amounts, with the topper being $10 Mil, LOL.


Mark,


I did greens and tees only on a public course in (bid 2013) for just under $2M, and probably underfunded by 10% so we made some sacrifices.  That $2M would be about $2.2Mil when the Cape Fear project was built out, and I presume they had more of everything (although Ross greens tend to be small)  As you say, we really don't know the scope of work.  And, there were probably up to 10% in soft costs, including, architects fees which might or may not have been included in the reported number.  Cost reporting seems to be all over the map.  So, it makes sense that the other items brought the budget up.


That said, I have seen reports of $20Mil renovations in Florida, which are hard to fathom, but the very high end clubs don't spare the expense.  I have done cost estimates in high labor areas like Chicago and MSP, and they are at least 20% higher than the national averages.  In fact, I am finalizing one now, and I am having trouble believing the numbers. 


After many years of stagnant construction pricing, things really have jumped with the return of the roaring economy.  It probably ends up being about 3% average per year, but construction costs seemed to be level, level, level, level, level, level and then up 20-25% in the last two years.  That has actually been typical in my career, but its always a shock.


And, I typically add 3% knowing it will take a project at least a year to get going, but should I now, with both an oil war (holding down trucking costs) and the pandemic (holding down construction demand?)  In 2009 I estimated a project using unit cost from the previous two years worth of projects and the final bids came in 15% under the estimate.


So, yeah, it is pretty unfair to judge the $5Mil here without a broader background and knowledge of the work scope.

[ChipRoyce]

PDF of the article if you can't read it.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ywk61Z_ga0nA5P1ETvqYeBP88FWNYtPz/view?usp=sharing

[ChipRoyce]

So the intention of this post is not to criticize the scope and quality of the restoration.

I posted this specifically to see what various folks thought of the 2 bunkers in the photo.

Over the past couple of years, we've all been exposed to a lot of McRaynor and appreciate what they often did with flattish, less interesting land.


When I saw this photo from a realtor and immediately knew it to be from Cape Fear, it just struck me at a viceral level.

I totally appreciate the attempt to add a golden age flavor and restore Donald Ross styled features.

However, this bunker to my eye from this angle, just seems completely out of place to the nature of the land around it. If meant to be artificial in the theme of chocolate drops or other, seems to miss the mark as it looks to have been constructed to seem natural.


I can see the steep banks on the inside to capture shots. But the steep edge on the left side would seem to throw the ball back to the fairway and the right side, would reject balls out of bounds.


That said, this is just my opinion and am curious how this strikes others.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Chip,


As I said, I like the look of the bunker.  Those who talk about it not "fitting nature" are probably over romanticizing how much bunkers really do that, once golf got off the links land and had to be built.  Was Mac's bunker at 10, a totally artistic puzzle piece rendition of a sand bunker any more or less natural?  probably about equal, of course, so we should only really debate the visual effect (at least from this photo) 


These bunkers seem to me to be trying to replicate century plus old courses, maybe even before Ross back even into Myopia and courses like that.  Of course they aren't flat and featureless like the surrounding land because they would be a lot less interesting than they are as built.


IMHO, smaller scale local sites (which this appears to be) need smaller scale bunker (and as a practical reason, are usually the only thing that fits). So I don't mind the concept at all on any esoteric terms.  There may be just a few

small details of construction that we could maybe think about more.  All projects have them

, even on an excellent job overall. 

[Derek_Duncan]

Chip,


As I said, I like the look of the bunker.  Those who talk about it not "fitting nature" are probably over romanticizing how much bunkers really do that, once golf got off the links land and had to be built.  Was Mac's bunker at 10, a totally artistic puzzle piece rendition of a sand bunker any more or less natural?  probably about equal, of course, so we should only really debate the visual effect (at least from this photo) 


These bunkers seem to me to be trying to replicate century plus old courses, maybe even before Ross back even into Myopia and courses like that.  Of course they aren't flat and featureless like the surrounding land because they would be a lot less interesting than they are as built.


IMHO, smaller scale local sites (which this appears to be) need smaller scale bunker (and as a practical reason, are usually the only thing that fits). So I don't mind the concept at all on any esoteric terms.  There may be just a few

small details of construction that we could maybe think about more.  All projects have them

, even on an excellent job overall.

In before me. Why does a bunker have to appear natural? Did the bunkers on this golf course ever look natural, whatever that is?

[Kalen Braley]

Agreed.

Natural?  Hell no.

Beautiful and Compelling golf?  I would think so..

[Mark Pritchett]

A golf course is about as natural as a farm.

[ChipRoyce]

I'm not sure folks read my comments correctly.
"However, this bunker to my eye from this angle, just seems completely out of place to the nature of the land around it."

The nature of the land, didn't mean natural.

"If meant to be artificial in the theme of chocolate drops or other, seems to miss the mark as it looks to have been constructed to seem natural."
I like artificial when it makes sense. The McRaynor school had no problem using geometric shapes, etc... to add variety, depth, visual contrast.

Looking at this bunker, it seems its creator attempted to craft this in a way that seems like it was "found". IMHO, in the context of the area around it (flat) doesn't really make sense (although, now that I think of it, I have seen some fire ant mounds in that area that resemble these shapes).
 

[Sean_A]

Chip,

As I said, I like the look of the bunker.  Those who talk about it not "fitting nature" are probably over romanticizing how much bunkers really do that, once golf got off the links land and had to be built.  Was Mac's bunker at 10, a totally artistic puzzle piece rendition of a sand bunker any more or less natural?  probably about equal, of course, so we should only really debate the visual effect (at least from this photo) 

These bunkers seem to me to be trying to replicate century plus old courses, maybe even before Ross back even into Myopia and courses like that.  Of course they aren't flat and featureless like the surrounding land because they would be a lot less interesting than they are as built.

IMHO, smaller scale local sites (which this appears to be) need smaller scale bunker (and as a practical reason, are usually the only thing that fits). So I don't mind the concept at all on any esoteric terms.  There may be just a few

small details of construction that we could maybe think about more.  All projects have them

, even on an excellent job overall.

In before me. Why does a bunker have to appear natural? Did the bunkers on this golf course ever look natural, whatever that is?

I too would like to know why natural looking bunkers is a requirement.

Ciao

[David Bowen]

I believe Andrew Green is responsible for the recent renovation at Oak Hill East.  The grass faces of the new bunkers look similar to the photo here with steep walls and vertical wave crests and troughs.  It is a very different look from what was there before and rather jarring in comparison.  It will be interesting to hear how they are received.  I would have like to see a softer look, but I'm not a member, so my opinion doesn't count for much.

[Mike Bodo]

Without seeing the original Ross plans or even before and after photos of the course, I'm not sure what to make of the bunker styling. That said, the link to the article posted from the Star News mentioned bunkers on the renovated course being moved. Whether that means some were moved to their original locations or moved to new, strategic locations, I am not sure? The thing to note about Ross' bunker philosophy was that he often placed bunkers were he felt they naturally fit the terrain, regardless if they came into play. He often placed cross bunkers in places that pinched the fairway and forced the golfer to either lay-up short, be bold and hit over or play to the section of the fairway that was made available to them. As far as greenside bunkers are concerned; Ross would typically close off entrances to greens where short irons would be hit into them and open the entrance to greens requiring a mid to long iron approach, enabling the possibility to run the ball up on the green in the event you came up short. On certain holes Ross would have no greenside bunkers, but would have one or two bunkers 15 - 30 yds. short of the green that appeared as though they were fronting it, thus creating an optical illusion. Without more detailed information and images as to what the course originally looked like and how it's transformed and changed over the years and to see how each hole looks like and plays now, it's hard to know what to make of this bunker styling.

[Thomas Dai]

I think I might be inclined to remove them and replace them with gorse!
atb

[Eric Smith]

Found this image in an article on the Golf Course Architecture website:



Photo credit: Steven Turner

[Eric Smith]

A golf course is about as natural as a farm.

Profundity at its finest, Mr. P!

[Mark_Fine]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  Just because something looks artificial doesn’t mean it can’t provide compelling golf.  Some will think the photo Kalen posted looks like a completely manufactured golf hole.  It is!  If I posted a photo of a hole from Shadow Creek, many would think it looks natural even though it is also completely manufactured.  Which provides more compelling golf? 


At the end of the day it is all about variety (and personal preference).  A circle shaped bunker that is four feet deep provides as much hazard value as one just as deep with a fancy laced edge.  Some will hate the one bunker but love the other!  Why?


Sand Hills gets so much acclaim for being “natural”.  C&C “found” the holes there, as we all like to say, they didn’t build them.  What would we all think if Raynor built a course on that property?  It would hardly look like what C&C did and my guess is most of us would embrace it was well!  Explain that 

[MCirba]

All the greens were re-done, as well.   

The contours you see were based on the Donald Ross detailed hole-by-hole drawings that hang in the men's locker room, is my understanding.

This was my year end review after playing there this past December; 

https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,67809.msg1627473.html#msg1627473

[Don Mahaffey]

In before me. Why does a bunker have to appear natural? Did the bunkers on this golf course ever look natural, whatever that is?

Derek, the photos we have to go off are not great, and it'd be better if we saw all the bunkers and the topography...so my comments are not totally specific to those bunkers, more of a general comment. 


No, bunkers don't have to appear natural, and most of the time they don't. But to my eye, and I'm by no means the authority on this, just my tastes...I don't like bunkers that compete with the landscape. I think of the bunkers at Oakmont...we all know the pews, but generally, the bunkers there are not mimicked all over. You see the hole in the ground, you see where the dirt went...its like the architect said, we are putting a hazard here for the player to deal with...and that's it. No pretense, no "look at me" and my stylish shaping.
We have all these bunker specialists that seem to build the same bunker over and over. I'm seeing that and I don't know if architects get lazy, or if they really just like that style and they think it travels.  So, my summary, if you think you need bunkers for strategy, go for it, if the landscape doesn't allow for a "natural" look, then it doesn't. But they don't always have to lead...in most cases they should be supporting actors to the larger view of the golf course.  Call me a snob, but achieving the right balance of subtle and bold is what I see separating the field. 

[Jim Hoak]

I agree 100 percent with what Don is saying--and what I believe Chip is saying also: The issue isn't whether the bunkers in the picture are "natural" or "manufactured."  It's how they fit into the area surrounding them.  Do they complement or do they clash?  Agreed, it is hard to tell from the one picture--but to me they clash.  As Don says, bunkers should not be the lead feature.  They should subtly add to the overall picture.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Don,


Lots of philosophical questions regarding bunkers!


I agree that the late 90's were a time when sand bunkers probably became more visually dominant as a feature than "classic" design theory would dictate.  I blame both real estate development courses (where bunker placement was often at least partially about the sideways views as this photo angle, but from houses, and of course, the awards obsession.


I have gone back to several of my courses, standing out in the fw with my thumb in front of my eye to determine if I would really miss that last bunker lobe, or whatever.  In general, for most gca, sand bunkers got out of scale and now that the awards and houses are sold and no longer important, yeah, many can come out.


As to disappearing into nature, I am not so sure.  Obviously, the contrast of sand to turf is one of the basic aesthetics in golf.  They don't need blazing white sand, but there should be some difference and they are important to the visual composition of the hole, still.


As to building the same bunker, yeah, it seems so.    I wonder if the frilly look is really in place in the middle of a subdivision or park as it might be at Sand Hills.....


Just my hot takes!


BTW, the article mentioned irrigation work, too.  If it was a full new irrigation system, then $5Mil was a more than reasonable budget.

[Don Mahaffey]

Jeff,
The ragged edges that do well in sandy sites are not a good idea in clay. And I don't see that used nearly as often as I see it complained about.


I think if you've got a flattish heavy soil site, the mass earthwork and grading is what makes the bunkers work. I think if you have the budget and talent to move some dirt around and create land where you can nest bunkers in, then a little more creative shaping can work. Its when you don't move any dirt on a flat site, and you just scoop out dirt and use it to prop up the bunker that I think subtlety is the better move. Because otherwise to my eye, I don't like seeing this decorative thing sticking up out of a flat landscape. Feels incongruous.

[Sean_A]

Don

When I read "compete with the land" it sounds like code for I don't like it. Could you flesh out what you mean? From where I stand, almost all man-made architecture competes with the land.

Ciao

[Don Mahaffey]

Its not code, lets just say I like it less.
I think most golf courses are congruous, as in the land seems to have a certain frequency of movement. And certainly in nature there are places where wide contour lines suddenly run into tight contours. Rock out croppings, erosion areas, creeks...etc..
And I think that's OK on golf courses in a man made setting too. Nothing wrong with some edginess abutting smooth areas. My personal tastes are this tho, when I see a golf course where all bunkers are built to be highly visible, the shaping around them doesn't really tie into any land forms, and is very "busy" or decorative, like in the picture Eric Smith posted, then its just a style I don't care for.  It makes me feel like they were trying to make it all about the bunkers since no where else does the land move with the same frequency, and yet all bunkers move to the same busy frequency. It just feels like it becomes all about them and that doesn't feel right to me.  I have a negative emotional reaction to that. Not saying you shouldn't love it, obviously a lot do, I'm just not one of them.

[Ronald Montesano]

This thread should be pulled. Start over with a thread that has a purpose. It sounded like a hatchet job from the get-go, and it didn't improve along the way.


Post a slew of photos of the before and after. When you take enough course photos, as I have, you understand the absolute ludicrousness of posting one as a statement. A picture is NOT worth a thousand words, no matter what Bread told you in the 1960s.


It's not anyone's fault if CFCC wants to get out from under the lengthy shadow of Nicholas Sparks, and create a golf experience unlike any other. If their boards allow a variety of architects to come in every decade or so, to redo the look and feel of the course, bully.


One bad photo of one bunker. My lord honey, I never. The horse is loose in the hospital.

[John Chilver-Stainer]

The bunker in the construction photo is a beautiful piece of art ... but how will the steep and knobbly edges be maintained?
I guess strimming rather than sit on machines. Is this also considered in the budget?
Can the bunkerraker machines get in and out and circulate?
Or are 2 specialist workers allocated to do the handwork?
Great if you can afford it otherwise the bunkers will inevitably be "adapted" to more ease of maintenance.
What do our greenkeepers say?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()