[Peter Flory]

#3.  Slightly uphill par 3 by modern standards, but was called a par 4 then.  This one turns back toward the clubhouse before the 4th continues the outward direction. 

View from tee.  Very difficult hole.  More room to run it up than it appears from the player's perspective.  Uphill, 200+ yards, small green, and some fall offs in every direction.  Bogey waiting to happen. 


Zoomed in a bit:  The bunker/ waster area in the foreground is a spillover from #2. 


View from over the table top green


If you're even par so far, that is quite a start. 

[Peter Flory]

The majestic 4th.  Par 5- 509. 

From the tee area:


From first bunker #1


Approaching creek:  Possible angle of approach if you are trying to hit it in two... although you'd be a little ways behind this.


Approach shot if you had to lay up.


Approach shot if you cleared the creek in 2. 

[Peter Flory]

5th hole- severely uphill par 3.  Maybe a connector hole. 

From the tee- looking up to the green.  From here, you can only see a little bit of the fairway short of it.  This shot reminds me a little bit of the 8th hole at the U of M course, except that this shot is much more demanding.  Short and left is the only decent miss. 


Side view- elevated.  You can see the little shelf on the fairway that matches the Ross diagram perfectly.  It's still sitting there under the weeds. 


Being in the bunker would be no fun here. 





Nice view of the 6th hole in the distance.  This hole was a climb, but the reward is the big downhill tee shot coming up. 

[Peter Flory]

Hole 6.  Big boy hole, but downhill and roomy.  The mound through the fairway is a strategic feature.  I didn't build it up to Ross's specs, but just left what was in the ground and added some long grass to it for now. 

Downhill tee shot. 


From short of right FW bunker:


The mound would be on the left here where I have the long grass.  Would give you a blind approach if you bail out left off the tee. 


Perched up green complex with sunken in bunkers. 


View from over green.

[Peter Flory]

Hole 7.  This one changed quite a bit and was difficult to incorporate the changes. 

From the tee:  The #1 bunker is visible on the horizon. 


Elevated view from the left side of the fairway to show the centerline hazard and the mounded waste area to the right of the green.  I don't show the swale in the fairway, but that is another feature of the hole- was just hard to see clearly in the screenshots. 


View from short of green.  #1 is in the background on the left heading towards you and #8 is in the background to the right headed away. 


From behind green looking down fairway.

I like Ross's changes here.  Makes the hole very unique.  I'm always amazed at how willing GA architects were to change their own work and the work of others.  They had a lot of confidence. 

[Peter Flory]

Hole 8.  Another Mid Pines beauty.  This is my personal favorite on the front nine.  The beauty of the woods to the right and long with the pine needles is really something.

View from teeing ground:  Slanting fairway toward the pine needles. 


Drone view of #1 on the left and #8 outbound on the right. 







Elevated view of approach.  The bunker here blocked the view slightly from the right side of the fairway I believe if built up to Ross's specs.  This version is watered down due to erosion. 



Approach from the right rough- elevated




Sorry, couldn't help taking so many pics of this one

Seems like a birdie hole, unless you lose your tee shot to the right.  Then, this bunker probably causes the punch out to be a lay up. 

[Peter Flory]

Hole 9. Last one until I finish the back nine, which could be a while. 

This hole was the most difficult for me to do because the contours have been scraped and I couldn't import the lidar.  However, luckily there were some very good pictures of the green complex and Ross's diagrams were detailed, so I had enough information to recreate it. 

That's not really what the buildings looked like, but was as close as I could get.  It's representative. 


Zoomed in a little- hard to see, but the road cuts in front of the green and then circles around it.  This has a bit of that 18th at the Old Course dynamic where it returns to civilization, it is flat, and there is a stadium effect. 


View from behind the green.  The green is sort of a cradle, which is a welcome relief from all of the repelling greens on the front. 


I would say that overall, it has a great mix of holes.  1, 3, 5, and 6 seem like they would be the most difficult with modern par conventions- with 1 being a par 4 and 3 being a par 3.  7 and 9 seem medium.  2, 4, and 8 would be potential birdies. 

[Brian Ross]

This is awesome work, Peter!

[Chris Buie]

Overhills is the name of the new putting course at Southern Pines GC. It opens later this week.
A Kyle Franz production.

[PCCraig]

Pretty cool way to honor the old course. I did think for a second that they were bringing the actual course back a la Lido!!

[Chris Buie]

With all the babbling about the course earlier in this thread you would have thought it had all been covered. But, I went back and visited the course a couple of times earlier this year. There was more to see. I ended up pulling it together in a 42 page pamphlet:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CKWKGL8Y?ref_=ast_author_dp      [None of the profits go to me.]

There's a bit about the history and mystique. But it’s mainly about the ingenious nature of the course. The piece is essentially based on the sketches that Ross personally executed.



At first glance, most would kind of breeze through the sketches. But this is one of those cases when a closer really does reveal something truly remarkable. They tell quite a tale. Specificity, flamboyance, genuine wizardry.
Consider what’s happening on the 11th hole.



The pamphlet is hugely aided by the outstanding work of Peter Flory and Josh Nezat:
 

Let’s hope they never stop working on these fabulous renderings.

Some of the things I noticed on the recent walk through:


Mainly what stood out is the flamboyance of the course. Fifty yard long mounds that are six feet in height! Massively wide fairways next to massive bunkers – all measured to the inch.
The course is like an exaggerated version of his evolving style. Why was it so exaggerated?

Again, the commission called for “a course with no superior”. He was being asked to top the work he’d already performed. Part of the reason for the rowdy nature of the routing and hazards is simple. Grass greens were basically not viable in the South at this time.  The drama would have to come from the rest of the course.
There’s more – far more. 

…

Currently, the good folks at Fort Liberty (formerly Bragg) are in the midst of long-range planning. Some of the very serious people overseeing the project are fascinated with the place…

…

Overhills is only a few hundred acres in the corner of a military complex that (including nearby Camp Mackall) is about 1/5 the size of Rhode Island.


The pamphlet concludes with the fact that the estate is a cultural point of unusually high caliber. Properly handled, it would be of enormous benefit to many that are in need of the unique experience it offers.

This is the base of Special Forces. They do an amazing job of training them to handle the most extreme of situations. Reintegrating them back into the community? Let’s just say there is room for improvement. It’s not an easy thing to do. It requires a measure of magic.

[Mike Worth]

As an Army retiree, I’m interested to know what Fort Liberty’s planners are considering?


I stayed at the base hotel about a month ago.  My plan was to play the Stryker golf course (Donald Ross) and then drive out to the Overhills site and look around as this thread piqued my curiousoty


But, I didn’t do either because the weather that day was horrible. 


It’s hard to imagine anything substantial happening with Overhills. The Army is in the midst of a crisis in the quality of barracks living and family housing. Many would see Overhills as a vanity project when our troops living conditions are so poor

[Chris Buie]

The overall situation is complicated and intricate. But I would say viewing it as a 'vanity project' would display a serious lack of perspective and vision. Following that POV would be a mistake with large repercussions, in my opinion.

[Mike Worth]

The overall situation is complicated and intricate. But I would say viewing it as a 'vanity project' would display a serious lack of perspective and vision. Following that POV would be a mistake with large repercussions, in my opinion.

It’s a vanity project when looking at it from the Army’s perspective - one should consider all the other infrastructure items the Army needs to fund to maintain readiness — where does Overhills fit into that?  What will Congress say about the project?

And at the end of the day, the base is there so Soldiers can train to fight and win our nations wars. Any decision to fund Overhills will be put through that lens.

Is there an option to perhaps sell part of the original 1997 land acquisition to a private entity?  Or retrocede it?

[Chris Buie]

I would not characterize taking care of soldiers that were dropped in a meat grinder a vanity project.

I am not sure why they do not have adequate housing on base. Since we spend hundreds of billions every year on the military that should absolutely not be the case.

The idea would be for private funding for a restoration. That is, zero dollars from the Army (ie. taxpayers). When the rehabilitative programs are run properly they save money. A significant number of them can return to duty - not to mention their families.

[Mike Worth]

I would not characterize taking care of soldiers that were dropped in a meat grinder a vanity project.

I am not sure why they do not have adequate housing on base. Since we spend hundreds of billions every year on the military that should absolutely not be the case.

The idea would be for private funding for a restoration. That is, zero dollars from the Army (ie. taxpayers). When the rehabilitative programs are run properly they save money. A significant number of them can return to duty - not to mention their families.

The optics of a multi million dollar golf course project on Army (government) property that has a ton of actual infrastructure issues will be hard to overcome - even if the project is privately funded. 


I’m also trying to think, is there a precedent anywhere of a privately funded entity being allowed to build a golf course on a military base or even Federal property for that matter?

[Peter Flory]

I’m also trying to think, is there a precedent anywhere of a privately funded entity being allowed to build a golf course on a military base or even Federal property for that matter?

Is Warbird National on an air force base?  I don't know the story there, but maybe that's an example. 

[Joe_Tucholski]

I’m also trying to think, is there a precedent anywhere of a privately funded entity being allowed to build a golf course on a military base or even Federal property for that matter?

Is Warbird National on an air force base?  I don't know the story there, but maybe that's an example.

Where is Warbird National?  I've never heard of it.


There was a lot of discussion about Mike Keiser and his proposed project at Vandenberg (Vandenberg Dunes).  I was talking about the project today during my round and hear it's dead.


The Naval Academy Golf course transitioned to private funding through an athletic association.


The golf course at Camp Humphries was built with funds from the Korean government (part of a pretty complex land swap deal).


There are also multiple former military courses that are no longer military courses but still in operation.  These courses are usually transitioned with the closure of a base.


Privately funded facilities on DOD land is becoming more of a thing.  Certainly, pros and cons.

[Mike Worth]

Joe


Isn’t the Naval Academy course off-base?


Also, golf courses on military bases funded by foreign countries is not uncommon. In the mid-1980s, the German government wanted to expand the B17 highway outside of Augsburg. They needed the US to relinquish their golf course right outside of Sheridan Kaserne. In return the German government built a replacement nine hole course.


And of course, golf courses on closed or closing bases is also common


There’s no precedent for doing something on an active military base (inside the gates) especially one as big as Fort Liberty. 


And as I’ve pointed out, the optics are different now because of the infrastructure issues that exist on installations, even if I strongly agree that many of DoD’s infrastructure shortcomings are of their own making

[Tommy Williamsen]

Joe


Isn’t the Naval Academy course off-base?


Also, golf courses on military bases in foreign countries is not uncommon. In the mid-1980s, the German government wanted to expand the B17 highway outside of Augsburg. They needed the US to relinquish their golf course right outside of Sheridan Kaserne. In return the German government built a replacement nine hole course

Mike, I am not positive, but I think the Academy owns the ground the course is on. The PX, Commissary and some housing border the course.


When I was a kid in Berlin 60-61, the Army golf course was off base. Actually, I think it had been built prior to the war.

[Chris Buie]

Yes, I agree with Mike that the optics do matter. It's a pity that perception or misperception matter as much as they do. This is especially the case when they drive a consequential agenda.
I don't have time to get much into this now. But I do have time to type out a little parable.

Four blind guys were walking down the street when they came upon an elephant.
One touched its trunk and said 'this beast is like a firehose'.
One touched its side and said 'this beast is like a wall'.
One touched its leg and said 'this beast is like a pillar'.
One touched its tail and said 'you guys are idiots, this beast is like a broom'.
...
I'm pretty sure the sorry state of housing affairs is not due to lack of money. I know for sure that the Army pays too much for some things. In some cases, far too much.
Taxpayers want their dollars used in the best way possible. Overhills is not being used in the best way possible.
Precedent schmecedent. It can be done. Turn our backs to truly great opportunities and what sort of country do you end up with?

[Joe_Tucholski]

Joe


Isn’t the Naval Academy course off-base?


Also, golf courses on military bases funded by foreign countries is not uncommon. In the mid-1980s, the German government wanted to expand the B17 highway outside of Augsburg. They needed the US to relinquish their golf course right outside of Sheridan Kaserne. In return the German government built a replacement nine hole course.


And of course, golf courses on closed or closing bases is also common


There’s no precedent for doing something on an active military base (inside the gates) especially one as big as Fort Liberty. 


And as I’ve pointed out, the optics are different now because of the infrastructure issues that exist on installations, even if I strongly agree that many of DoD’s infrastructure shortcomings are of their own making

If by off base you mean not typically in an access restricted area, that is correct.  There are lots of facilities on DOD land that are not within an access-controlled gate.  A large amount of Fort Liberty (formerly Bragg) is outside entry restricted gates.  I've not been to Overhills but reading online I think anyone could visit the abandoned estate as it's not behind entry controlled gates.  If it is now behind a gate, the gate could easily be opened.  I've been at a base where gates were moved dramatically, and a golf course moved outside the gates.

There are lots of privately built and operated facilities on military land, and it's becoming more and more common.  Housing, launch sites, restaurants, athletic facilities, visitor centers, museums and lodging are examples I can quickly come up with where private funding has been used for construction and operation.  Not certain but think the golf team facilities at USAFA are privately funded.  From my perspective private funding and operation of facilities on military land is being used to overcome the infrastructure/budgeting issues you mention.

[Mike Worth]

Two points:


Joe T - I believe Overhills is located inside the gate. But I don’t know for certain maybe someone who actually visited the ground can verify.  If the Overhills site is outside the gate, or can be moved outside the gate via land sale, then the optics issue goes away IMO.  The redevelopment would become just like all the other public/private partnership examples you note.


The other point regards how much someone thinks the Army is or should spend for barracks and family housing vs how efficient they’re being with taxpayer funds.


Please allow me to introduce you to the military version of the “sunk cost“ argument. This holds that it doesn’t matter how much money has already been spent. Rather, the only thing that matters is how much more money is required to get it to where it needs to be.


I noted earlier 80% of the Army’s housing problem are of their own making. But it doesn’t matter — more money will be needed.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()