Broomsedge (Koprowski + Franz) Course Profile Now Posted

[Andrew Harvie]

Broomsedge Course Profile


Both Mike Koprowski and Kyle Franz have never had a virgin site to build golf on... until now. Located near Columbia, South Carolina, Broomsedge is a certainly a unique golf course, with three holes featuring two separate greens, a surplus of bunkering, and a more subtle set of greens in comparison to Cabot Citrus Farms (Karoo), Franz other “new build” (though that was on a previous Fazio golf course).


Course profile is linked above. I enjoyed seeing Out of Bounds, some obvious Golden Age homages throughout the routing, and some expected flair as well.

[Bart Bradley]

How many bunkers on this course, Andrew?

[Andrew Harvie]

How many bunkers on this course, Andrew?

That I don't know, but on the double 13th, there are 27 bunkers and that's by far the most bunkered hole(s) on property. There are a couple holes (like the 4th and 7th) that only feature a couple bunkers. I'd ballpark it around 150?

[Jeff Schley]

Holy maintenance hours batman!

[Andy Ryall]

I played the course about a month ago and think Andrew's write-up is certainly a fair analysis on the strengths and uniqueness of the course.   The design team's ability to route in a way to provide multiple hole vistas but not feel cramped is particularly well done.  Tree Farm is routed through corridors with a few common meeting points, which provides a bit more intimacy, than Broomsedge or Quixote, in many regards.   I think the Broomsedge routing options with 20 green sites provide more flexibility for multi-day play and mini-loops, as well.   Certainly if you are close to, or in the area, it is worth driving a bit out of your way to experience I found the Broomsedge staff to be responsive and laid back with the requisite experience at other destination/national clubs but with a start-up mentality.   

[ward peyronnin]

Andrew
Somewhere in the offering literature and while speaking with one of the owners(?) about membership the concept of golf simplified and unadorned and therefore more modestly bought into as in the UK model is presented.
Whatever the attractiveness and apeall of the design values isn't 150 bunkers contradictory after a fashion? Did you see this spirit in the design?

[Andrew Harvie]

Andrew
Somewhere in the offering literature and while speaking with one of the owners(?) about membership the concept of golf simplified and unadorned and therefore more modestly bought into as in the UK model is presented.
Whatever the attractiveness and apeall of the design values isn't 150 bunkers contradictory after a fashion? Did you see this spirit in the design?

There are certainly some conflicting statements with the design philosphy for sure, but in this case, where the owner is also the co-architect, they knew what they were doing and are obviously okay with the long term impacts of that many bunkers. Besides, I can think of a lot of really great golf courses with a surplus of bunkering (Shinnecock, Seminole, Banff, as three examples off the top of my head), and if someone is willing to pay for it, why not?


In most cases, it never actually feels like ~too many bunkers; the exception to that statement being the par 4, 13th, where you wonder why they needed so many on a single hole.

[John Foley]

The course in eminently playable w/ the bunkers they have. The holes where they are present you are given room to avoid them. The resulting shot of playing away from the bunkers may provide you with a more challenging next shot but that is to be expected.


The greens are VERY well done. Plenty of variations in size and challenge but nowhere near as severe as they could have been.

[Tim Martin]

Andrew
Somewhere in the offering literature and while speaking with one of the owners(?) about membership the concept of golf simplified and unadorned and therefore more modestly bought into as in the UK model is presented.
Whatever the attractiveness and apeall of the design values isn't 150 bunkers contradictory after a fashion? Did you see this spirit in the design?

Besides, I can think of a lot of really great golf courses with a surplus of bunkering (Shinnecock, Seminole, Banff, as three examples off the top of my head), and if someone is willing to pay for it, why not?

The last sentence and more specifically the highlighted portion is a head scratcher for me.

[Andrew Harvie]

Andrew
Somewhere in the offering literature and while speaking with one of the owners(?) about membership the concept of golf simplified and unadorned and therefore more modestly bought into as in the UK model is presented.
Whatever the attractiveness and apeall of the design values isn't 150 bunkers contradictory after a fashion? Did you see this spirit in the design?

Besides, I can think of a lot of really great golf courses with a surplus of bunkering (Shinnecock, Seminole, Banff, as three examples off the top of my head), and if someone is willing to pay for it, why not?

The last sentence and more specifically the highlighted portion is a head scratcher for me.

In general, I find there's a laziness to criticism around bunkering. Yes, it's a lot to maintain in both money and labour, but in this instance with the owner also being an architect (and having worked for Franz since Southern Pines), he's aware of the consequences of a lot of bunkers. He made that decision and it's more of an artistic choice, and if he's willing to pay to uphold his vision, what's the issue? I don't have a problem with someone choosing to bunker their own layout for stylistic preference or what not, because it's their artwork and that's how they choose to do so, much like Ross at Seminole (~165 bunkers), Flynn at Shinnecock (~155 bunkers), National (~130 through the front nine!), Banff (a lot), etc. It feels somewhat hypocritical to criticize new layouts for how many bunkers they use when some of the golden age layouts we celebrate or use as benchmarks for architecture also do the same. Especially when all the examples (including Broomsedge) except Banff are on sand, it's not like Broomsedge is on heavy clay and they decided they wanted 185 bunkers or whatever.


Rather than an arbitrary line in the sand on how many bunkers is too many, I think discussion is much better spent diving how those bunkers come into play, the artistry of them, and how they affect play. NGLA is a great example, because there's a LOT of bunkers (21 on the first hole!), but also a lot of variety in size, scope, and the purpose they serve.


In the case of Broomsedge, it doesn't feel "over-bunkered" except for the 13th (the photo I posted), because there's a commonality to the shapes and sizes of them, so they feel sort of wasted in that instance to me. Whereas, the golf courses I mentioned above have a wider variety in shape, size, and flavour when there are a lot of bunkers on single hole, and that added another element to it.


Anyway, I generally prefer the more subtle, subdued golf courses (I talked about bunker-less holes in my feature interview recently and my love for them), but rather than just labelling something "over-bunkered," there's a lot of interesting discourse and criticism hidden under that label to peel back and get into. If someone is willing to pay 50 or 100 or 150 or even 250 bunkers, I don't really have any issue with that: I'd much rather discuss the functionality of that decision and how they put it to use, and if it ended up being an affective way to build an interesting golf course.

[Tim Martin]

Andrew
Somewhere in the offering literature and while speaking with one of the owners(?) about membership the concept of golf simplified and unadorned and therefore more modestly bought into as in the UK model is presented.
Whatever the attractiveness and apeall of the design values isn't 150 bunkers contradictory after a fashion? Did you see this spirit in the design?

Besides, I can think of a lot of really great golf courses with a surplus of bunkering (Shinnecock, Seminole, Banff, as three examples off the top of my head), and if someone is willing to pay for it, why not?

The last sentence and more specifically the highlighted portion is a head scratcher for me.

In general, I find there's a laziness to criticism around bunkering. Yes, it's a lot to maintain in both money and labour, but in this instance with the owner also being an architect (and having worked for Franz since Southern Pines), he's aware of the consequences of a lot of bunkers. He made that decision and it's more of an artistic choice, and if he's willing to pay to uphold his vision, what's the issue? I don't have a problem with someone choosing to bunker their own layout for stylistic preference or what not, because it's their artwork and that's how they choose to do so, much like Ross at Seminole (~165 bunkers), Flynn at Shinnecock (~155 bunkers), National (~130 through the front nine!), Banff (a lot), etc. It feels somewhat hypocritical to criticize new layouts for how many bunkers they use when some of the golden age layouts we celebrate or use as benchmarks for architecture also do the same. Especially when all the examples (including Broomsedge) except Banff are on sand, it's not like Broomsedge is on heavy clay and they decided they wanted 185 bunkers or whatever.


Rather than an arbitrary line in the sand on how many bunkers is too many, I think discussion is much better spent diving how those bunkers come into play, the artistry of them, and how they affect play. NGLA is a great example, because there's a LOT of bunkers (21 on the first hole!), but also a lot of variety in size, scope, and the purpose they serve.


In the case of Broomsedge, it doesn't feel "over-bunkered" except for the 13th (the photo I posted), because there's a commonality to the shapes and sizes of them, so they feel sort of wasted in that instance to me. Whereas, the golf courses I mentioned above have a wider variety in shape, size, and flavour when there are a lot of bunkers on single hole, and that added another element to it.


Anyway, I generally prefer the more subtle, subdued golf courses (I talked about bunker-less holes in my feature interview recently and my love for them), but rather than just labelling something "over-bunkered," there's a lot of interesting discourse and criticism hidden under that label to peel back and get into. If someone is willing to pay 50 or 100 or 150 or even 250 bunkers, I don't really have any issue with that: I'd much rather discuss the functionality of that decision and how they put it to use, and if it ended up being an affective way to build an interesting golf course.

I appreciate the response but I’m not convinced that Broomsedge is in the same stratosphere as Shinnecock, Seminole, National and Banff so for me at least the comparisons miss the mark. Time will tell how favorably Broomsedge is received but the idea that because “someone is willing to pay for it, why not” is not the design ethos I would subscribe to.

[Andrew Harvie]

Andrew
Somewhere in the offering literature and while speaking with one of the owners(?) about membership the concept of golf simplified and unadorned and therefore more modestly bought into as in the UK model is presented.
Whatever the attractiveness and apeall of the design values isn't 150 bunkers contradictory after a fashion? Did you see this spirit in the design?

Besides, I can think of a lot of really great golf courses with a surplus of bunkering (Shinnecock, Seminole, Banff, as three examples off the top of my head), and if someone is willing to pay for it, why not?

The last sentence and more specifically the highlighted portion is a head scratcher for me.

In general, I find there's a laziness to criticism around bunkering. Yes, it's a lot to maintain in both money and labour, but in this instance with the owner also being an architect (and having worked for Franz since Southern Pines), he's aware of the consequences of a lot of bunkers. He made that decision and it's more of an artistic choice, and if he's willing to pay to uphold his vision, what's the issue? I don't have a problem with someone choosing to bunker their own layout for stylistic preference or what not, because it's their artwork and that's how they choose to do so, much like Ross at Seminole (~165 bunkers), Flynn at Shinnecock (~155 bunkers), National (~130 through the front nine!), Banff (a lot), etc. It feels somewhat hypocritical to criticize new layouts for how many bunkers they use when some of the golden age layouts we celebrate or use as benchmarks for architecture also do the same. Especially when all the examples (including Broomsedge) except Banff are on sand, it's not like Broomsedge is on heavy clay and they decided they wanted 185 bunkers or whatever.


Rather than an arbitrary line in the sand on how many bunkers is too many, I think discussion is much better spent diving how those bunkers come into play, the artistry of them, and how they affect play. NGLA is a great example, because there's a LOT of bunkers (21 on the first hole!), but also a lot of variety in size, scope, and the purpose they serve.


In the case of Broomsedge, it doesn't feel "over-bunkered" except for the 13th (the photo I posted), because there's a commonality to the shapes and sizes of them, so they feel sort of wasted in that instance to me. Whereas, the golf courses I mentioned above have a wider variety in shape, size, and flavour when there are a lot of bunkers on single hole, and that added another element to it.


Anyway, I generally prefer the more subtle, subdued golf courses (I talked about bunker-less holes in my feature interview recently and my love for them), but rather than just labelling something "over-bunkered," there's a lot of interesting discourse and criticism hidden under that label to peel back and get into. If someone is willing to pay 50 or 100 or 150 or even 250 bunkers, I don't really have any issue with that: I'd much rather discuss the functionality of that decision and how they put it to use, and if it ended up being an affective way to build an interesting golf course.

I appreciate the response but I’m not convinced that Broomsedge is in the same stratosphere as Shinnecock, Seminole, National and Banff so for me at least the comparisons miss the mark. Time will tell how favorably Broomsedge is received but the idea that because “someone is willing to pay for it, why not” is not the design ethos I would subscribe to.

It's not in the same realm as the courses listed, but that's not because of the number of bunkers. My point is, I'd rather debate the merits of how they used the features they chose to spend money on, rather than the money they'll take to maintain or how much they spent to build the golf course. That's a much more fruitful conversation and one that provides substance, rather than an arbitrary "over-bunkered" label. When I said if someone is paying for it, who cares---that was my point. I'm certainly not campaigning for frivolous features or bunkers, but it's lazy criticism, IMO, and I think we can do a better job of discussing golf than that.

[Tim Martin]

Andrew
Somewhere in the offering literature and while speaking with one of the owners(?) about membership the concept of golf simplified and unadorned and therefore more modestly bought into as in the UK model is presented.
Whatever the attractiveness and apeall of the design values isn't 150 bunkers contradictory after a fashion? Did you see this spirit in the design?

Besides, I can think of a lot of really great golf courses with a surplus of bunkering (Shinnecock, Seminole, Banff, as three examples off the top of my head), and if someone is willing to pay for it, why not?

The last sentence and more specifically the highlighted portion is a head scratcher for me.

In general, I find there's a laziness to criticism around bunkering. Yes, it's a lot to maintain in both money and labour, but in this instance with the owner also being an architect (and having worked for Franz since Southern Pines), he's aware of the consequences of a lot of bunkers. He made that decision and it's more of an artistic choice, and if he's willing to pay to uphold his vision, what's the issue? I don't have a problem with someone choosing to bunker their own layout for stylistic preference or what not, because it's their artwork and that's how they choose to do so, much like Ross at Seminole (~165 bunkers), Flynn at Shinnecock (~155 bunkers), National (~130 through the front nine!), Banff (a lot), etc. It feels somewhat hypocritical to criticize new layouts for how many bunkers they use when some of the golden age layouts we celebrate or use as benchmarks for architecture also do the same. Especially when all the examples (including Broomsedge) except Banff are on sand, it's not like Broomsedge is on heavy clay and they decided they wanted 185 bunkers or whatever.


Rather than an arbitrary line in the sand on how many bunkers is too many, I think discussion is much better spent diving how those bunkers come into play, the artistry of them, and how they affect play. NGLA is a great example, because there's a LOT of bunkers (21 on the first hole!), but also a lot of variety in size, scope, and the purpose they serve.


In the case of Broomsedge, it doesn't feel "over-bunkered" except for the 13th (the photo I posted), because there's a commonality to the shapes and sizes of them, so they feel sort of wasted in that instance to me. Whereas, the golf courses I mentioned above have a wider variety in shape, size, and flavour when there are a lot of bunkers on single hole, and that added another element to it.


Anyway, I generally prefer the more subtle, subdued golf courses (I talked about bunker-less holes in my feature interview recently and my love for them), but rather than just labelling something "over-bunkered," there's a lot of interesting discourse and criticism hidden under that label to peel back and get into. If someone is willing to pay 50 or 100 or 150 or even 250 bunkers, I don't really have any issue with that: I'd much rather discuss the functionality of that decision and how they put it to use, and if it ended up being an affective way to build an interesting golf course.

I appreciate the response but I’m not convinced that Broomsedge is in the same stratosphere as Shinnecock, Seminole, National and Banff so for me at least the comparisons miss the mark. Time will tell how favorably Broomsedge is received but the idea that because “someone is willing to pay for it, why not” is not the design ethos I would subscribe to.

It's not in the same realm as the courses listed, but that's not because of the number of bunkers. My point is, I'd rather debate the merits of how they used the features they chose to spend money on, rather than the money they'll take to maintain or how much they spent to build the golf course. That's a much more fruitful conversation and one that provides substance, rather than an arbitrary "over-bunkered" label. When I said if someone is paying for it, who cares---that was my point. I'm certainly not campaigning for frivolous features or bunkers, but it's lazy criticism, IMO, and I think we can do a better job of discussing golf than that.

I guess I don’t understand the “lazy criticism” comment as to the bunkers. You provided photos in your profile and people should be able to comment on same.

[Andrew Harvie]

Andrew
Somewhere in the offering literature and while speaking with one of the owners(?) about membership the concept of golf simplified and unadorned and therefore more modestly bought into as in the UK model is presented.
Whatever the attractiveness and apeall of the design values isn't 150 bunkers contradictory after a fashion? Did you see this spirit in the design?

Besides, I can think of a lot of really great golf courses with a surplus of bunkering (Shinnecock, Seminole, Banff, as three examples off the top of my head), and if someone is willing to pay for it, why not?

The last sentence and more specifically the highlighted portion is a head scratcher for me.

In general, I find there's a laziness to criticism around bunkering. Yes, it's a lot to maintain in both money and labour, but in this instance with the owner also being an architect (and having worked for Franz since Southern Pines), he's aware of the consequences of a lot of bunkers. He made that decision and it's more of an artistic choice, and if he's willing to pay to uphold his vision, what's the issue? I don't have a problem with someone choosing to bunker their own layout for stylistic preference or what not, because it's their artwork and that's how they choose to do so, much like Ross at Seminole (~165 bunkers), Flynn at Shinnecock (~155 bunkers), National (~130 through the front nine!), Banff (a lot), etc. It feels somewhat hypocritical to criticize new layouts for how many bunkers they use when some of the golden age layouts we celebrate or use as benchmarks for architecture also do the same. Especially when all the examples (including Broomsedge) except Banff are on sand, it's not like Broomsedge is on heavy clay and they decided they wanted 185 bunkers or whatever.


Rather than an arbitrary line in the sand on how many bunkers is too many, I think discussion is much better spent diving how those bunkers come into play, the artistry of them, and how they affect play. NGLA is a great example, because there's a LOT of bunkers (21 on the first hole!), but also a lot of variety in size, scope, and the purpose they serve.


In the case of Broomsedge, it doesn't feel "over-bunkered" except for the 13th (the photo I posted), because there's a commonality to the shapes and sizes of them, so they feel sort of wasted in that instance to me. Whereas, the golf courses I mentioned above have a wider variety in shape, size, and flavour when there are a lot of bunkers on single hole, and that added another element to it.


Anyway, I generally prefer the more subtle, subdued golf courses (I talked about bunker-less holes in my feature interview recently and my love for them), but rather than just labelling something "over-bunkered," there's a lot of interesting discourse and criticism hidden under that label to peel back and get into. If someone is willing to pay 50 or 100 or 150 or even 250 bunkers, I don't really have any issue with that: I'd much rather discuss the functionality of that decision and how they put it to use, and if it ended up being an affective way to build an interesting golf course.

I appreciate the response but I’m not convinced that Broomsedge is in the same stratosphere as Shinnecock, Seminole, National and Banff so for me at least the comparisons miss the mark. Time will tell how favorably Broomsedge is received but the idea that because “someone is willing to pay for it, why not” is not the design ethos I would subscribe to.

It's not in the same realm as the courses listed, but that's not because of the number of bunkers. My point is, I'd rather debate the merits of how they used the features they chose to spend money on, rather than the money they'll take to maintain or how much they spent to build the golf course. That's a much more fruitful conversation and one that provides substance, rather than an arbitrary "over-bunkered" label. When I said if someone is paying for it, who cares---that was my point. I'm certainly not campaigning for frivolous features or bunkers, but it's lazy criticism, IMO, and I think we can do a better job of discussing golf than that.

I guess I don’t understand the “lazy criticism” comment as to the bunkers. You provided photos in your profile and people should be able to comment on same.

Fair point. Not meant to be argumentative—I just think there's more to unpack than a line in the sand on what's over-bunkered and what's not

[Sean_A]

My Issue with loads of bunkers is that I wonder what other elements could have been used to achieve a similar effect. You say it’s lazy to criticise bunkering based on numbers, some may say it’s lazy design to use that many bunkers. In this case, I don’t know…haven’t seen the course. But my general angle is that I would prefer a balance of features/hazards. I understand this is not always possible or even desirable, but I use it as a general guideline…in the hope that variety is encouraged. At the end of the day much depends on the details of the work.

Thanks for the tour!

Ciao

[Mike Koprowski]

Hopefully I can add some specific background to the convo.  As Andrew mentioned, the 13th at Broomsedge is really the only spot on the course where there is an obvious surplus of formal bunkers right now.  Folks should be aware that we are not maintaining that hillside of bunkers on a regular basis.  It’s a very steep hillside and our gameplan all along was to: 1) first, immediately stabilize with sod to establish a root bed and prevent epic washouts (tons of surface water dumps over that hillside and we had a violent, rainy summer); and then 2) once stabilized and grown-in, let it go wild and accelerate the process through scalping and chunking.  As nature does its thing in subsequent growing seasons, I suspect some of those bunkers will stay formal while others turn into craggy unmaintained pits.  But no way are we performing daily maintenance on all those bunkers, nor was that ever the intent. 

More generally beyond Broom, I tend to agree with Andrew that pure bunker count doesn't really tell us much about a course. 

Cheers!

[JBovay]

Mike,


I read that you built Broomsedge at a significantly lower cost than most other new courses, and even than typical renovations. It would be great if you can share some perspectives on how you accomplished this. What methods did you use to save costs? What else would you have done if you had spent twice as much?


Or was the cost lower mainly because you built it on sand, and because as the owner you were not trying/able to make a profit on the construction?


Thanks so much. The course looks great.


JB

[Mike Treitler]

As someone who had the privilege of playing 54 holes at Broomsedge, I never once felt the course was over bunkered.  In addition, i actually loved the 13th hole bunkering as its a stunning part of the property.  That’s maybe the the one area of the course that you COULD say it’s over bunkered as many of the bunkers won’t come into play, but there’s a time and place for dramatic aesthetic features and I think it works quite well there.

There are so many well placed bunkers throughout that make the golfer choose the route they want to take based on the desired angle into the green.   Strategy off the tee is the standout characteristic of Broomsedge and makes repeat plays so fruitful. 

[Mike Koprowski]

In the field, we called the wall-o-bunkers on 13 “The Shenanigans.”  Comically coined by Mark Christensen. If you think the shenanigans are not in play, you probably have never hit your drive into the deep centerline fairway bunker when the pin is on the high right green. I, unfortunately, have.  When I’m in that deep fairway bunker, particularly closer to the lip, I can only safely advance the ball about 70-80 yards - which would put my layup smack into the Shenanigans, and then I have a 60 yard third shot from Hell to the pin. So it creates a huge risk/reward recovery shot where I’m tempted to pull a lower lofted club that would carry the Shenanigans, which, of course, raises the prospect of not clearing the fairway bunker lip in front of my ball. Under that scenario, the shenanigans become a very penal cross hazard that you suddenly think about - and only think about - after a poor drive. It’s out of mind, until it isn’t

After playing with lots of people over the past few months, I have found that the Shenanigans also cause psychological mistakes from the fairway even though they aren’t in play from the fairway.  For example, there is 40 yards of gentle short grass in between the Shenanigans and the start of the high right green.  As Andrew described in his profile, there is one annoying central pimple in the green, but the ground contours short and to the side of the green will allow a lower skipping shot to work around the pimple.  But the stark visuals somehow reflexively get people to hit a sky high shot directly at the pin anyway, which often lands into the pimple and capriciously repels away from the pin.  Over time, people are learning that the counter-intuitive lower trajectory shot over the wall is better than the sky high shot.

Also, we have the optionality to play 13 as driveable par 4, which definitely brings the Shenanigans into play if someone tries to go for the right green and mis-hits it or pulls it left. Also, the lower left green can be driveable on some days too. Players who get aggressive off the tee and block one to the right will find themselves in The Shenanigans with a horrible angle into the left green.

A long-winded way of explaining their function in a dual-green setting with various setup options!

As someone who had the privilege of playing 54 holes at Broomsedge, I never once felt the course was over bunkered.  In addition, i actually loved the 13th hole bunkering as its a stunning part of the property.  That’s maybe the the one area of the course that you COULD say it’s over bunkered as many of the bunkers won’t come into play, but there’s a time and place for dramatic aesthetic features and I think it works quite well there.

There are so many well placed bunkers throughout that make the golfer choose the route they want to take based on the desired angle into the green.   Strategy off the tee is the standout characteristic of Broomsedge and makes repeat plays so fruitful.