[Tommy Williamsen]

I have played a few courses that have been built on the site of an existing course. The routing is completely different. As I was playing I wondered why the old routing wasn’t used but more than that I marveled at how the architect saw a different routing. I would think it would be difficult to ignore the old layout and think that far outside the box.[/size]

[Jim Hoak]

The Shore Course at Monterey Peninsula Country Club was rebuilt in 2004 by Mike Strantz over the top of a non-descriptive course that had been built in the early 1960's.   His over-riding objective was to flip the course, with greens being tees and tees greens, so it played backwards from the old course.  He said he wanted right-handed golfers to play the holes along the ocean, while facing the water rather than with their backs to it.  The result is very good.
Maybe this isn't a totally new course, since many of the hole corridors had homes alongside them.  But it is new enough that Golfweek classifies it as a modern course, not a classic.  I believe that is correct.

[Tommy Williamsen]

The Shore Course at Monterey Peninsula Country Club was rebuilt in 2004 by Mike Strantz over the top of a non-descriptive course that had been built in the early 1960's.   His over-riding objective was to flip the course, with greens being tees and tees greens, so it played backwards from the old course.  He said he wanted right-handed golfers to play the holes along the ocean, while facing the water rather than with their backs to it.  The result is very good.
Maybe this isn't a totally new course, since many of the hole corridors had homes alongside them.  But it is new enough that Golfweek classifies it as a modern course, not a classic.  I believe that is correct.

I played the course in both iterations. It took a lot of imagination to see the existing course when the old one was there. But if there was one thing Stranz had it was imagination.

[Jason Thurman]

There's a new course west of Milwaukee that I'm thinking I might visit during the Mini Mashie this year that fits this topic. The Club at Lac La Belle was originally established in 1896, but just finished a total overhaul where I think just a single hole's corridor was retained. The new course looks pretty cool! www.clubatlaclabelle.com

[Peter Pallotta]

I don't think architects are like you and me. They 'see' things differently. Analogously it's like great jazz improvisers: I marvel at their ability (and willingness) to 'ignore' the written melodies of even the most famous & popular songs of the day (even those by top-flight composers) and re-create/re-shape them anew, based on their own tastes and temperaments.

[Peter Flory]

There's a new course west of Milwaukee that I'm thinking I might visit during the Mini Mashie this year that fits this topic. The Club at Lac La Belle was originally established in 1896, but just finished a total overhaul where I think just a single hole's corridor was retained. The new course looks pretty cool! www.clubatlaclabelle.com

That isn't true, although I have seen a lot of people say that.  1-4 are totally new and on new land.  The 5th, 7th, 9th, 10th, and 15th holes are essentially the same holes as before (but in a different order).  They have some dramatically improved bunkering and a few have newly contoured and expanded greens, but if you're familiar with the old course, you'll immediately recognize the holes from the tee.  #16 and #18 combine corridors from multiple holes, so they are recognizable, but totally new creations.  All of the par 3s are new.  A few other holes use familiar bits and pieces of prior holes, but come at them from different angles than before. 

[Kalen Braley]

I shared this in the Ozarks National thread, and post it here.

If you look on Google Maps,  there was previously 9 holes for what I believe was John Daly's Murder Rock golf course.

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5595344,-93.183332,957m/data=!3m1!1e3

Then you see can Ozark National here and what C&C did with the site.

https://www.bing.com/maps?osid=9efb9d42-8083-4027-a11c-fa5a648e20b8&cp=36.558661~-93.181663&lvl=16&style=h&v=2&sV=2&form=S00027

[Jeff_Brauer]

Last year we re-opened a course that was basically a new over an old one.  We ended up keeping the routing of 7 existing holes while rebuilding them completely.  It was a very short, terrible, amateur design, but I guess no one routes absolutely every hole wrong.


What made it easy to re-envision was they missed a great parcel of land originally left to real estate I wanted to use for golf.

[Jeff_Mingay]

I have played a few courses that have been built on the site of an existing course. The routing is completely different. As I was playing I wondered why the old routing wasn’t used but more than that I marveled at how the architect saw a different routing. I would think it would be difficult to ignore the old layout and think that far outside the box.

Tommy,

It's easy to ignore the existing routing after you've identified a bunch of fundamental deficiencies

[Thomas Dai]

St Patricks at Rosapenna?
Atb

[Tom_Doak]

St Patricks at Rosapenna?
Atb

Yes, St Patrick's is a new routing over the site of what was originally 36 holes.  Our 1st, 2nd, 7th and 8th holes run pretty close to the routing of their original shorter course, and a couple of tee shots on the back nine are similar to shots from before, but I don't think anyone familiar with the original course would remember those.


It's much easier to do a majorvrerouting on a site that's mostly open, like a links or the cups land where The National in Australia is located.  In America they have often planted trees to define the old corridors and then it's hard to get out of them, other than reversing  the holes.

[David_Tepper]

The Ocean Course at the Olympic Club has had multiple versions/iterations in the 40 years I have been playing there. The last major renovation of the course was done by Weiskopf/Moorish 20-25 years ago. I think only 3 of the current holes (#2, #3 & #4) remain as they were in 1980. Several of the green sites and tee boxes are in the same places, but many of the playing corridors have changed (especially on the back 9) and some of the holes have been reversed. The land under the three par-4's that used to be west of Skyline Blvd. (up until 1983) is now the heart of the 9-hole par-3 Cliffs course.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

John Fought renovated Maryvale, a run down Phoenix muni that opened in 1961, using Wm. F. Bell's routing. The course was renovated taking into account that Grand Canyon U's golf team would be using the course for matches and tournaments. Many new bunkers made the course more attractive and difficult.  The university has a 30year lease Here's my previous thread.




https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,59791.0.html

[mike_beene]

If you use 80% of the old routing is it a new course or a rennovation?

[Bill Seitz]

I have played a few courses that have been built on the site of an existing course. The routing is completely different. As I was playing I wondered why the old routing wasn’t used but more than that I marveled at how the architect saw a different routing. I would think it would be difficult to ignore the old layout and think that far outside the box.

The Preserve at Oak Meadows, a public course in the Chicago area, recently opened where what was regular old Oak Meadows used to be, and before that it was Elmhurst Country Club.  It's a mix of old and new holes.  They had a flooding issue with a large creek that runs through the property, so some changes were needed.  It also bordered a nine hole course, and they took that land to build four new holes.  Some of the original holes could not be redone without major tree clearing, so the first hole is the same, then you move to the new holes, and the second, third, fourth, and fifth are the new 6, 7, 8, and 9.  The back nine has some pretty major changes as well.  They lost a cool par 3 that played to an island in the creek that has now just gone to seed.

[Mike_Clayton]

Bruce Grant,John Sloan and I built a new course for Royal Queensland after the government built a huge bridge spanning both the Brisbane River and the 12th and 17th fairways on the original course.
They lost 12-16 and built an entirely new course on the remaining land on the 'clubhouse' side of the bridge.
It was amazing they had enough left over to do that - it's hard to imagine many courses losing 5 holes and being able to rebuild on the same site.


Five of the new holes play the same way down the same corridors and are recognisable but the rest is new.
The Australian PGA is scheduled to be there in December but more likely it'll be in February.

[Robin_Hiseman]

Anyone who played the old Tom Macauley designed Glendevon Course at Gleneagles might not be so harsh with their judgement of how Nicklaus laid out the back nine of the PGA Centenary.


There are now 7 holes laid out over land that once contained 13! The Glendevon was a terrible mess and rightly blown up at the earliest opportunity. A few odd bits survive between the timeshares, now long overgrown. The 1st tee, 1st green and 18th green still jut out into the large pond on the other side of the entrance road. Other than that it has been erased from history. Fortunately, I still have the scorecard and map of our one round over it before it was consumed. Weirdly, I have a clear memory of playing this forgettable course. I think the thrill of being at Gleneagles offset the disappointment of having to play the Glendevon!



Not expecting a sympathetic hearing on here...

[Tom_Doak]

If you use 80% of the old routing is it a new course or a rennovation?

It depends a bit on the scope of the rest of the work.  I only re-routed 4-6 holes at Atlantic City and Medinah #1 but I still count those as mine because we changed everything else about them, but I'd have no argument with calling them a renovation and listing the previous architects, too.  The National and St Patrick's are 80-90% changed so I'm not sure listing the previous designers makes sense there.

[Tommy Williamsen]

If you use 80% of the old routing is it a new course or a rennovation?

It depends a bit on the scope of the rest of the work.  I only re-routed 4-6 holes at Atlantic City and Medinah #1 but I still count those as mine because we changed everything else about them, but I'd have no argument with calling them a renovation and listing the previous architects, too.  The National and St Patrick's are 80-90% changed so I'm not sure listing the previous designers makes sense there.

Tom, What changes did you make to holes 14-16 at ACCC?

[Brian Ross]

I've been having this same conversation recently on a project in Kentucky. The position I've taken sounds a lot like Tom's at ACCC and Medinah. The routing is generally unchanged on 15 of the 18 holes but there isn't a single hole where the tees, centerline, and green are all in the same location as they were before. We've added bunkers and other hazards where there weren't any, removed a couple of really poorly located ponds, and taken out the vast majority of the trees on the interior of the property. I feel like we've done enough to call this course our own but I also wouldn't really have an argument if someone else chose to refer to is as a major renovation instead.

If you use 80% of the old routing is it a new course or a rennovation?

[Jim Hoak]

If you use 80% of the old routing is it a new course or a rennovation?

I think it is easier to answer the question in reverse--It is a renovation/restoration if it is based on the model of the original architect.  The work that has been completed by Keith Foster at Brook Hollow in Dallas is clearly a restoration, in that it is modeled on the original Tillinghast course--same routing, squarish greens, Great Hazard, etc.--all items loved by Tillinghast.  Course opens November 1.  Early look is spectacular.
I am not objecting to all new courses built on top of existing ones, but then the Club needs to stop using the name of the original architect.  Of course, it isn't always that clean a demarcation.

[Jeff_Brauer]

In response to Tommy's question, as with most things in life, the answer is, "It depends."


As with most things where credit is to be assigned, I would think the best path would be to be prudently modest and call anything where you used parts of an old course a renovation.


As TD says, part of that rests in how big the rest of the changes are, i.e., use 7 holes of existing routing but rebuild all 18 to totally new character as in the project I referenced earlier?  Yeah, I count it as a new course.  Had it been designed by a known gca originally, I may not have.  But, early in the project, I started looking into the history, and it was a local civil engineer and golf pro.  The engineer told me they didn't have topo maps, because "we didn't think you needed one to route a golf course."


[size=78%]A[/size]nd the fact that we went from a "upside down bowl" type greens to a modern design themed course, etc., didn't hurt.


Suffice to say, that sort of swayed me into thinking it was a new course......also, the changes were dramatic enough that the course changed its name, which also helps the case of being a new course.  When the owner wants to say they have created a new course, it sort of steers the discussion that direction as well.  Not to mention, it had been a money loser and caused other problems, so the owner really wanted to sort of bury the past.


 In the end, those sum total of factors made it a new course in most peoples minds.  Who am I to argue with the consensus?

[Carl Rogers]

I am a little surprised that there has been no discussion of the sprinkler system re-work needed for such projects.
High complexity?
High cost?

[David Wuthrich]

Here in Houston we have the new Tiger Woods design, Bluejack National, that was built on the same land as the Old Blaketree National.  I had played both and it is really hard to see any of the old course left after Tigers design.  The old design, part of it by C&C, was pretty good, so surprised at least part was not used.  It takes real talent to be able to see a totally different course when there is already one there before your eyes.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I am a little surprised that there has been no discussion of the sprinkler system re-work needed for such projects.
High complexity?
High cost?

Kind of the reverse. If the sprinkler system is so old it needs to be replaced, it really frees up the option to rebuild from tee to green, including re-routing.  If it is relatively new, taking out a dozen sprinklers per green (or tee complex) and replacing them (using new pipe) is an expense, but not so big to stop a course from rebuilding things 1-2 holes at a time over several years.  However, not too many courses are going to rip out a 2-10 year old system "just" to improve a routing.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()