Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Adam Warren on October 09, 2013, 09:11:48 AM
-
As I've mentioned before, we will be removing about 130 trees from our course in the next little bit, and will be attempting to employ someone to draw us up a tree plan for strategically replacing trees and potentially adding other features to the course in place of some trees for a more immediate impact to play on the course. Due to where our course is and what it is, I obviously do not need to try to grab any of the big names like Doak, C&C, etc., but would like someone reputable that may not have the panache of one of those big names. We can't drop all we want on this project, but we do have money budgeted for this. I have been looking for a little bit, but I know many of you guys may have more insight and knowledge on this than I do. Looking forward to your comments.
-
Depending on where you are located, I could do that service for your club. contact me JimLipeDesign@gmail.com
Cheers
-
Don't know where you are Adam but, Ron Prichard in PA is an excellent restoration architect. Ron knows how trees can interfere with the game and comprise turf conditions. He has an impressive resume and broad GCA knowledge.
-
Adam, any good architect should be able to do that with you, preferably in cooperation with a good ecologist/arborist. Tree removal is such a ubiquitous task at almost all GBI and European courses nowadays that I often only half jokingly state that I have a boile plate chapter that I can insert into any Course report about tree removal. However the analysis is only half the work, the hardest part is the process of convincing the membership that the trees need to go. Not many architects have the process skills needed to do that succesfully.
-
REPLACE trees?!?!?! :-X
-
Frank
Would you work with any architect if you were in Adam's shoes?
Or would you rather work with a team that can help you with your present task and start a relationship for future opportunities?
Cheers
-
Frank
Would you work with any architect if you were in Adam's shoes?
Or would you rather work with a team that can help you with your present task and start a relationship for future opportunities?
Cheers
The fact a professional architect did a master plan 25 years ago that showed 550 trees on our newer 9 holes is one of the biggest obstacles to getting many of them thinned out and removed. After all, how can I claim to know more than a professional.
In many ways, hiring a architect may be as much about the "sell" that a professional recommends it, as which trees to actually remove. If the money is there, working with an architect is certainly preferred, but I'd guess there are a lot of obvious ones based on sunlight/roots that the super/committee should be able to determine easily. Another good resource is the USGA, which has a consultation package which is about $3k, that includes a report that will address turfgrass issues and trees. We did that, and that certainly helped the progress when the "USGA expert" recommended things.
-
Don't know where you are Adam but, Ron Prichard in PA is an excellent restoration architect. Ron knows how trees can interfere with the game and comprise turf conditions. He has an impressive resume and broad GCA knowledge.
Ron is a good choice, I have seen alot of his work outside Philly. You will not go wrong with him
.
-
Sorry for the lack of detail. My club is just outside of Louisville, Ky.
We are losing roughly 130 trees due to a turf chemical our club used called Imprellis by Dupont which has effected many clubs and generally kills conifer type trees. There is a class action suit against Imprellis currently, but we were involved prior to that and have dealt with a settlement with them. It's not that we have the choice of which trees we will be removing, but that these trees have been marked and paid for to be removed. We want/have/need to bring in trees or other feature replacement for the golf course in protection against par/sightlines/other golfers. It is a fun, old course built in the 60s with some additions made over the years.
I will do my best to contact the recommendations and contacts presented to my thus far. Please keep additional recommendations/comments coming.
-
Also, I am not able to find a way to contact Ron Prichard, as I am not seeing a website for his services.
How familiar is anyone with Kevin Hargrave? Apparently he worked with Keith Foster for several years and is mostly on his own now and based out of Kentucky? I have heard good things from a couple of clubs that are somewhat close to us, but was curious about this community here. Might work well with him being a semi-local guy. Thanks.
-
Also, I am not able to find a way to contact Ron Prichard, as I am not seeing a website for his services.
How familiar is anyone with Kevin Hargrave? Apparently he worked with Keith Foster for several years and is mostly on his own now and based out of Kentucky? I have heard good things from a couple of clubs that are somewhat close to us, but was curious about this community here. Might work well with him being a semi-local guy. Thanks.
[/quote
I spent a little time with Kevin when he visited at Colonial during Keith's renovation of 2008. Seems like a very smart guy, thorough and diligent.
-
Frank
Would you work with any architect if you were in Adam's shoes?
Or would you rather work with a team that can help you with your present task and start a relationship for future opportunities?
Cheers
Mike, ofcourse I would recommend him to pick the best team and form a LT relationship. I just wanted to indicate that tree removal is probably one of the easiest things to figure out from an analytical point of view, and one of the hardest to sell process wise. My language just wasn't very precise....
-
Frank
Would you work with any architect if you were in Adam's shoes?
Or would you rather work with a team that can help you with your present task and start a relationship for future opportunities?
Cheers
Mike, ofcourse I would recommend him to pick the best team and form a LT relationship. I just wanted to indicate that tree removal is probably one of the easiest things to figure out from an analytical point of view, and one of the hardest to sell process wise. My language just wasn't very precise....
Frank,
The removal is not the issue. The removal isn't up for debate really due to the chemical affecting them. The issue is that we want to put trees back in the right areas, to better protect the golf course against par.
-
Adam:
If you want a formal tree-planting plan, then you probably have to hire someone who is a licensed landscape architect, since most states have regulations to protect such work. [You can get around the regulations by hiring a "landscape contractor" or just someone to put flags in the ground where to plant trees, but if you want a formal plan that specifies the plants, then most states require the license.]
A lot of golf course architects went to landscape architecture school and some have the professional license ... I never bothered since I mostly only deal with trees as to cutting them down, which does NOT require a license. ;)
-
Thank you Frank.
I rely on the hope that a golf course would want a creative opinion even for simple or procedural tasks, you never know what may develop from an idea. This is an important reason why I've enjoyed working with Mahaffey - he is also filled with ideas!
Cheers
-
Another work checking out is Dan Schlegel (Schlegel Golf Design). Here's their website: http://www.schlegelgolfdesign.com/ and a link to an article about his work at San Jose CC in Jacksonville, FL: http://www.gcsaa.org/gcm/2007/oct/feature4.asp.
W
-
The removal is not the issue. The removal isn't up for debate really due to the chemical affecting them. The issue is that we want to put trees back in the right areas, to better protect the golf course against par.
Adam, thanks for your clarification. The one thing that worries me, and makes me think you will need a good architect, is your comment about using trees to protect the golf course against par. Trees are lousy hazards, or as Mr Colt once said "fluky and obnoxious hazards". My advice to you (not knowing the exact details of the course) would be to use the trees as decoration, far away from the playing lines, and use other things as hazards for your course......
-
Frank
Would you work with any architect if you were in Adam's shoes?
Or would you rather work with a team that can help you with your present task and start a relationship for future opportunities?
Cheers
Mike, ofcourse I would recommend him to pick the best team and form a LT relationship. I just wanted to indicate that tree removal is probably one of the easiest things to figure out from an analytical point of view, and one of the hardest to sell process wise. My language just wasn't very precise....
Frank,
The removal is not the issue. The removal isn't up for debate really due to the chemical affecting them. The issue is that we want to put trees back in the right areas, to better protect the golf course against par.
Adam,
You are joking, right?
-
Also, I am not able to find a way to contact Ron Prichard, as I am not seeing a website for his services.
I tried Google, and found some other suggestions that you might try. ;D
(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a168/carrera993/RonPrichard_zps80dca191.jpg)
-
I understand your points about protecting against par. The trees are not integral in that form as they are, but I think they can stand to create some interesting lines on the golf course, "decoration" if you will. I guess that was the first thing that came out when I was typing to clarify the previous statements. I guess it was more meant as they stand, attribute more as a penalty for wayward shots in various areas of the golf course, as opposed to a protection of par. The point is, the golf course will play much differently for many people with the loss of the trees, and I want to assist the course in regaining some of the strategy that the trees created. Feel free to crucify my comments as you like. ;)
-
Kevin, generally pretty difficult to contact someone via wikipedia.... ;)
Also figure there is a better way than LinkedIn. Many people do not check their LinkedIn that regularly.
-
I don't really know what a typical process is, but have you tried putting out an RFP of sorts. I'm sure you could put it out via ASGCA or something and you would get numerous responses. Again, no idea what the typical process is though.
-
Kevin, generally pretty difficult to contact someone via wikipedia.... ;)
Also figure there is a better way than LinkedIn. Many people do not check their LinkedIn that regularly.
My post was more tongue-in-cheek with respect to the other architects listed on the side.
But I'll do the google heavy lifting for you on contact info for Mr. Prichard:
(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a168/carrera993/RonPrichard2_zps779394b2.jpg)
-
Rich Mandell is a certified arborist.
http://www.golf-architecture.com/ (http://www.golf-architecture.com/)
-
I understand your points about protecting against par. The trees are not integral in that form as they are, but I think they can stand to create some interesting lines on the golf course, "decoration" if you will. I guess that was the first thing that came out when I was typing to clarify the previous statements. I guess it was more meant as they stand, attribute more as a penalty for wayward shots in various areas of the golf course, as opposed to a protection of par. The point is, the golf course will play much differently for many people with the loss of the trees, and I want to assist the course in regaining some of the strategy that the trees created. Feel free to crucify my comments as you like. ;)
Adam,
You need help. :)
Par doesn't exist. It's imaginary. Made up. There is nothing to "protect."
If trees are needed in order to regain strategy, then trees aren't your problem...the golf holes at your club are as they never had any strategy to begin with. Save your money from the tree budget and pay an architect to renovate the golf course.
-
Josh,
I'm not sure on the process either. Kind of feeling my way through this. I don't know people personally who have been through anything similar either, so this is where you guys come in....
Kevin,
Got it through other means. Thanks.
PCraig,
::)
I never claimed the course where I belong is a masterpiece. It is a fun course that is inexpensive and convenient, with an active golfing membership with some other pretty good players. It is a Buck Blankenship built in the 60's. You probably don't know what that means. I'm not even sure I have to explain this to you. I have all the help I need.... 8)
-
My club used Stratapoint to map and catalogue our trees and lay out a tree replacement program.
-
We want/have/need to bring in trees or other feature replacement for the golf course in protection against par/sightlines/other golfers.
Please keep additional recommendations/comments coming.
Adam,
I hope that you received some helpful suggestions about who to hire. But there is no way the comment you made above will go unchallenged on GCA.COM in 2013. Many a fine course has been screwed up with just such well-intentioned thinking...
If you are talking about safety issues or exterior sightline trees, fine. But if you are talking about interior sightlines, I would suggest that back views and side views of golf holes are quite attractive. And the use of trees as defense against par is extremely questionable and probably will end up with contrived "strategy." If your club is hell bent on creating "bunkers in the sky" I would suggest that you can draw up the plan, plant them slowly over time, and see how the course plays without the trees. Each new tree had better have a really compelling case for being there...
Cheers,
Bill
-
I have a few links that will give an idea of what Adam's home course looks like:
HCCC's home page: www.henrycountycountryclub.com
A review page with a link to a few photos: http://www.golfkentuckylinks.com/Pages/Courses/Henry%20County%20CC.html
A quick look at Google Maps shows that the course isn't heavily treed by any stretch, and the current trees don't encroach heavily on the lines of play. HCCC is a farmland course that's similar to what you'll find all over Kentucky. It's a low-budget layout from the 1960s, built by Buck Blankenship (who built basically every course in Central Kentucky in the 50s and 60s, and probably is responsible for most of the state's golf reputation) on terrain that isn't especially interesting and with a lack of architectural features overall.
It's a semi-private club that does well by keeping green fees low and conditions above average. They're not going to do a full scale renovation, as much as we might like to advise one.
Their board doesn't have a ton of flexibility in an architectural or financial sense. What they do have is a will to make sure they do things correctly. They deserve commendation for looking to hire an architect to supervise the changes they're making. Planting trees, as we all know, is much riskier on a golf course than it sounds. It's not fair to evaluate this club the way we would evaluate a Golden Age course built by an ODG. Its objectives are very different.
I do think efforts to "protect par" with trees are misguided. Adam, you're a good player. I'm betting you rarely are hampered by trees around the course any more than you would be by thick rough, especially when you're playing well enough to challenge par. I've somehow never played the course (I lived in Pleasureville down the road for a while growing up), but I've seen it many times in person and in photos and most of the trees are well back from the lines of play, which is one of several things that the course has gotten right over the last 50 years. The guys who put par in danger just aren't hitting in them very often out there I would guess. HCCC would get torched by a pro, as would most courses. The point is, the trees really aren't stopping anyone from shooting par but they might be stopping some higher handicappers from finding balls or being able to make swings, and that's just not much fun.
I think your goal of making the sightlines attractive and providing some definition is a better one to focus on. If you can get some fairway bunkering or shaping touch-ups into the budget, I'd go for it. But if your only option is planting trees wisely (and it sounds like it is), I'd do it as slowly as possible to see how the course plays without them and where they're really needed, and as I mentioned in the spin-off thread, focus on planting tall specimen hardwood trees rather than the chintzy evergreens and bradford pears and silver maples and other wooden weeds that dominate so many courses in our area of the country. Honestly, imprellis is probably a blessing in disguise. Short evergreens just don't belong on golf courses. They look silly and like something that should be in a landscaped lawn, and taking an unplayable or lost ball because you roll under one is miserable. But some tall hardwoods would look pretty nice out there I think.
-
We are losing roughly 130 trees due to a turf chemical our club used called Imprellis by Dupont
So where can I get some of this Imprellis.......
-
You all make very solid points regarding the trees. Hey, thats part of the reason I'm here right? To learn more. Definitely some thoughts I will take with me moving forward.
-
It's a good thing someone planted those trees next to the lake, it would be a shame to have to see the feature and it would be too easy to have to drop and not have to punch out from underneath them.
(http://www.golfkentuckylinks.com/Images/Henry%20county%2013.jpg)
Were these trees behind the green poisoned? I hope so, because they shouldn't be there.
(http://www.golfkentuckylinks.com/Images/Henry%20County17.jpg)
-
Pat, while I can see where you're coming from, I also don't think either example you cited is an egregious issue. The trees next to the lake in the first photo are undeniably sparse and should be easy to play around. Do you think players are obligated to have a clear shot at a green after hitting into a lateral hazard? Personally, I think one tree near the hazard line is fine even if it makes a pitch out the prudent play for one out of every 100 players who hits into the hazard. It's certainly not overly penal.
The trees behind the green in the second photo may not serve much of a purpose, but they look nice enough, don't impede playing lines, and appear to be set far enough back to not affect turf. While you (and maybe I) might prefer the course without them, I suspect that members and public would probably prefer them by a margin of about 5:1 or so versus a clearer view of the lake, and that's ultimately the course's constituency.
I'd say complaints about trees at HCCC are much ado about nothing for now, but there is admittedly a slippery slope if planting were to continue and start getting closer to fairway and green turf or actually crowding out options for recovery (which is why they're looking for an architect to advise). I just don't think the course has started sliding down that slope yet, and having seen it in person, I think it would look very nondescript and lack definition and texture without its trees. While fairway bunkers and more artistic shaping would certainly be a better way to add that definition and texture, those things just aren't ever going to be in the budget.
This course is VERY different from the typical clubs who wish to remove and manage trees we discuss on this site, and I don't think the same boilerplate arguments for tree removal apply.
-
Pat,
Am I missing something here?...
If you are taking out trees and then planning to plant new ones in certain spots, why not just leave a few trees already in those spots? You'll save money and any new ones you plant, won't have any significant impact for quite a while. They'll need to mature.
One thing I've learned while working first hand on our tree management process at Tavistock...there was a lot of talk about selective planting of some new trees in certain areas after the bulk of our work was completed. We are close to 10 yrs into our plan and we haven't planted ONE SINGLE new tree yet, and I plan on keeping it that way.
Do yourself a favor, take out all the trees you think are necessary, then take out even more, don't worry about replanting and you'll be all set. :)
-
Pat,
Am I missing something here?...
If you are taking out trees and then planning to plant new ones in certain spots, why not just leave a few trees already in those spots? You'll save money and any new ones you plant, won't have any significant impact for quite a while. They'll need to mature.
One thing I've learned while working first hand on our tree management process at Tavistock...there was a lot of talk about selective planting of some new trees in certain areas after the bulk of our work was completed. We are close to 10 yrs into our plan and we haven't planted ONE SINGLE new tree yet, and I plan on keeping it that way.
Do yourself a favor, take out all the trees you think are necessary, then take out even more, don't worry about replanting and you'll be all set. :)
You don't have to worry about me planting any trees anytime soon.
-
Were these trees behind the green poisoned? I hope so, because they shouldn't be there.
(http://www.golfkentuckylinks.com/Images/Henry%20County17.jpg)
Pat --
Speaking of views behind greens...
I'd love to hear about the discussion that preceded the erection of that new wall behind your 6th and 12th greens.
Dan
-
This is something of a dilemma where sometimes we on GCA.com get into a bit of a semi-ethical or else uncomfortable position of having other participants start recommending architects and superintendent practices based on someone at a particular club/course inquiring on behalf of _______. I think Jason has made the most important points, and it wasn't until he gave more information about which course, and a fleeting example of photos from the course that there was even a bit of context to Mr. Warren's inquiry.
I would like to know if Mr. Warren is a member concerned about the direction of the board or ownership entity of that course. While it is called McHenry "County", I get the impression it is not a municipal course. But it is open to the public and as Jason indicates, is a budget driven operation.
The stated 'conifer' problems of being poisoned probably isn't reflected in the photos. Also, the presents of those damn willow trees as an ubiquitous messy species plaguing so many golf courses, indicates that there certainly is a need for a tree plan, including replacement of trees (if that is the aesthetic desired, or some other feature creation or re-arrangement that may be in order, depending on budget of course.
But the slippery slope of us making recommendations beyond that gets dicey. Kevin's gentle prod to do the research seems about right to me. Hopefully that listed board of directors of the club listed on the club's website, are committed enough to do some of that research, including perhaps asking a valued and respected member to help beat the bushes for ideas. But, past getting them started, I think we discussion participants should get too far down the road of making specific architect or landscaper recommendations - in open forum. The info it out there for those who seek. The ideas and debate on value of trees is a fine one in the generic sense, and totally related to our subject matter. That seems the right aspect to discuss openly, but not specific architects for a specific job, IMHO.
-
Pat,
Am I missing something here?...
If you are taking out trees and then planning to plant new ones in certain spots, why not just leave a few trees already in those spots? You'll save money and any new ones you plant, won't have any significant impact for quite a while. They'll need to mature.
One thing I've learned while working first hand on our tree management process at Tavistock...there was a lot of talk about selective planting of some new trees in certain areas after the bulk of our work was completed. We are close to 10 yrs into our plan and we haven't planted ONE SINGLE new tree yet, and I plan on keeping it that way.
Do yourself a favor, take out all the trees you think are necessary, then take out even more, don't worry about replanting and you'll be all set. :)
You don't have to worry about me planting any trees anytime soon.
Oops. Sorry. I meant to address it to Adam.
-
Pat,
Am I missing something here?...
If you are taking out trees and then planning to plant new ones in certain spots, why not just leave a few trees already in those spots? You'll save money and any new ones you plant, won't have any significant impact for quite a while. They'll need to mature.
One thing I've learned while working first hand on our tree management process at Tavistock...there was a lot of talk about selective planting of some new trees in certain areas after the bulk of our work was completed. We are close to 10 yrs into our plan and we haven't planted ONE SINGLE new tree yet, and I plan on keeping it that way.
Do yourself a favor, take out all the trees you think are necessary, then take out even more, don't worry about replanting and you'll be all set. :)
If one were to read the entire thread, they would know that we have trees that are dying due to a turf chemical produced by Dupont. The trees MUST come out of the ground. The trees referred to by Pat are not affected. I am fairly certain they do not bear any resemblance to a pine tree....
For RJ, they have no updated the page regarding the board members. I am a member, and am on the board. We are a semi-private course with 300 memberships that is open to the public. Most people have recommended people to me in PM with their own personal experiences or knowledge.
I am interested to see the course without some of these trees, especially based on some of your comments.